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

Re: Vacuum and Transactions

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(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 18:49:37
Message-ID: 200107061849.f66Inbw09583@candle.pha.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).

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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

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

pgsql-general by date

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

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