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

Re: Vacuum and Transactions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "'pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vacuum and Transactions
Date: 2001-07-06 18:45:46
Message-ID: 17754.994445146@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> In 7.2, VACUUM will not require an exclusive lock.

> Care to elaborate on that?  How are you going to do it?

Uh, have you not been paying attention to pg-hackers for the
last two months?

I am assuming here that concurrent VACUUM will become the default
kind of vacuum, and the old style will be invoked by some other
syntax (VACUUM FULL ..., maybe).

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-07-06 18:49:37
Subject: Re: Vacuum and Transactions
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-07-06 18:42:39
Subject: Re: Vacuum and Transactions

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Mihai GheorghiuDate: 2001-07-06 18:47:39
Subject: Number of days
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-07-06 18:43:44
Subject: Re: HUPing a database

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