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

Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "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 17:35:41
Message-ID: 18468.1191260141@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> I realize this isn't directly addressing the problem but perhaps part of the
> solution would be to start advocating the use of pg_restore -1 ? That would
> solve the problem for the narrow case of pg_restore.

Well, that would do as a quick workaround, as would disabling autovacuum
during the restore.

> In the long run we could think about exposing some kind of command for
> pg_restore to use which would disable autovacuum from touching a
> table.

Ugh.  I think a real solution probably involves a mechanism that kicks
autovacuum off a table when someone else wants an exclusive lock on it.
This is a little bit worrisome because a steady stream of lock requests
could prevent autovac from ever finishing the table, but it seems clear
that not doing this is going to make autovac a lot more intrusive than
people will stand for.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2007-10-01 17:42:41
Subject: Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-10-01 17:24:41
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PG on NFS may be just a bad idea

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