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

Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Maxim Boguk <Maxim(dot)Boguk(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full)
Date: 2011-03-25 16:10:21
Message-ID: 13556.1301069421@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Use autovacuum --- if there's something that wants to access the table,
>> autovac will get kicked off the lock. (Of course, the table may never
>> get truncated then, but maybe you don't care.)

> I could see this turning out somewhat unhappily...

> If there's almost always something that wants to access the table,
> which would be hardly surprising, in view that the table is being
> updated with sufficient regularity that it's got 10GB+ of dead space
> at the end, then you're eventually going to *HAVE* to vacuum it.
> Transaction rollover, and what not.

It is already vacuumed.  The only remaining step is to release free
space back to the OS; and if he's got a lot of churn in the table,
it's not entirely clear that that's a productive activity anyway.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-03-25 16:16:07
Subject: Re: checking on bug #5917
Previous:From: Christopher BrowneDate: 2011-03-25 15:58:46
Subject: Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full)

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