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