Thats fine, but you do understand that nice (linux) will have *no*
effect on I/O?
For any non-trivial table (that can't be held entirely in memory),
re-nice will almost certainly have no effect.
-Barry
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Gaetano Mendola
Barry S wrote:
Thats fine, but you do understand that nice (linux) will have *no*
effect on I/O?
I do.
For any non-trivial table (that can't be held entirely in memory),
re-nice will almost certainly have no effect.
That's my feeling too, but at least is a try.
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
--
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>I feel that renice a backend will not kill your system.
>
>
> It won't kill the system, but it probably won't accomplish what you
> hoped for, either.
>
That's true but right now renice a backend is the only way to procede
in order t
Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I feel that renice a backend will not kill your system.
It won't kill the system, but it probably won't accomplish what you
hoped for, either.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)
Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I don't know how effective this would be, but you could wrap the
system call setpriority() in a user-defined function if your
platform supports it. This would set the "nice" value of the
backend process, which might serve as a crude prioriti
