Well, basically there are only INSERTs going on there (it is a table holding audit records for each DML statement). I do not see how a DELETE statement could block an INSERT?
You are correct that rebuilding the table will be faster, but then, there is a chance that some INSERT's will be blocked and eventually will fail (depending on the duration of the rebuilding, the exact moment I run it, and the involved operations on the other tables).
Could such a memory consumption be related to a GET DIAGNOSTICS plpgsql block? The delete itself is within a stored procedure, and then I return the amount of the deleted rows from the function:
DELETE FROM
audits.audits
WHERE
id <= last_synced_audits_id;
GET DIAGNOSTICS counter = ROW_COUNT;
RETURN counter;
2016-07-05 21:51 GMT+03:00 Josh Berkus <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
On 07/04/2016 10:10 AM, Kouber Saparev wrote:
> No. There are AFTER triggers on other tables that write to this one
> though. It is an audits table, so I omitted all the foreign keys on purpose.
Is it possible that the DELETE blocked many of those triggers due to
locking the same rows?
Incidentally, any time I get into deleting large numbers of rows, I
generally find it faster to rebuild the table instead ...
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
