Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher
Date: 2007-10-01 21:33:42
Message-ID: 1191274422.4260.92.camel@ebony.site (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 16:50 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> > Can CREATE INDEX and ANALYZE be made to run concurrently?
> 
> I don't see why not (except for the fact that both try to update
> reltuples and relpages AFAIR, so we would need to be careful about
> that).

This seems like the most desirable solution, everything else I've
thought of is really just a kluge.

We could make ANALYZE use optimistic locking, so it doesn't attempt the
catalog lock until later, so ANALYZE would be two internal transactions.
It should not overwrite the reltuples values from a concurrent CREATE
INDEX either.

We should not allow VACUUM to be concurrent with either CREATE INDEX or
ANALYZE, but then thats not the problem here anyway.

-- 
  Simon Riggs
  2ndQuadrant  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-10-01 22:53:40
Subject: Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher
Previous:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2007-10-01 21:33:37
Subject: Re: pgsql: Use BIO functions to avoid passing FILE * pointers to OpenSSL

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group