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

Re: Deadlock in vacuum (check fails)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Deadlock in vacuum (check fails)
Date: 2010-02-01 15:11:29
Message-ID: 19782.1265037089@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Does this create a problem combined with the plan to allow the new
> VACUUM FULL to rewrite system tables? From my brief scan it sounds
> like the only reason there's no race condition here is that previously
> the oid of system tables couldn't change out from under
> load_critical_index.

Their OIDs will never change, so I don't see an issue.  Locks are taken
on OIDs not relfilenodes, so a relocation doesn't break locking.  If
it did we'd already have a problem with relocating user tables.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-02-01 15:15:39
Subject: Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-02-01 15:07:49
Subject: Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL

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