On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Dan Kortschak <dan.kortschak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks to everyone who has answered this. The short answer is that > torque is not behaving the way I expected and not the way I have ever > seen it behave in the past. The I/O binding of these jobs may have > something to do with this, but I will look into it further. > > cheers > > On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 13:26 -0800, John R Pierce wrote: >> I'm totally unfamiliar with torque., but you probably need to tell >> torque to run the first script and wait for it to return before >> running >> the rest, its probably launching a bunch concurrently. >> > That *shouldn't* be the case as the contents of a torque script should > be run sequentially (many jobs depend on this and I've never seen job > parts run out of order), just as a sh script is (they are actually just > csh scripts in my case). My understanding is that the parallelisation > occurs either through using MPI or other parallel compilers or running a > number of torque jobs, BUT I've just tested the hypothesis by running it > as a straight csh script - and it works perfectly, so there must be > something like that going on. I'll ask some of our more experience > torque admins about it. Thanks. If it turns out you need to have a lock with a 'longer than transaction' duration, maybe advisory locks are a good fit. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
