> 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).

By concurrent vacuum, do you mean the auto-vacuum you are doing?  I
realize that will not need a lock.  Are you changing default VACUUM so
it only moves rows inside existing blocks too?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

• Re: Vacuum and Transactions at 2001-07-06 18:45:46 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: Vacuum and Transactions at 2001-07-06 18:50:42 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2001-07-06 18:50:42
	Subject: Re: Vacuum and Transactions
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2001-07-06 18:45:46
	Subject: Re: Vacuum and Transactions

pgsql-general by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2001-07-06 18:50:42
	Subject: Re: Vacuum and Transactions
Previous:	From: Ed Loehr	Date: 2001-07-06 18:49:00
	Subject: Re: order by + union (was: query syntax change?)