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

Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>,Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each
Date: 2006-07-30 19:21:39
Message-ID: 20060730192139.GB9229@surnet.cl (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> writes:
> > Ühel kenal päeval, P, 2006-07-30 kell 14:11, kirjutas Alvaro Herrera:
> >> What was idea behind moving vac_update_relstats to a separate
> >> transaction?  I'm wondering if it's still needed, if it further enhances
> >> the system somehow, or your patch did something differently than what
> >> was applied.
> 
> > The part of transactions which actually modified the data (iirc it updates
> > relpages and reltuples in pg_class) is not safe to ignore by concurrent 
> > vacuum, say a vacuum on pg_class .
> 
> But that's done as a nontransactional update, or at least was the last
> time I looked, so there's no need to do it in a separate xact.
> 
> Knew I should have taken time to review that patch before it went in ...

Which one?  The one I applied doesn't have this change.  (You are still
more than welcome to review it of course.)

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tzahi FadidaDate: 2006-07-30 19:41:00
Subject: 64 bits bitwise operations support
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-07-30 19:19:23
Subject: Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-07-30 20:24:09
Subject: Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-07-30 19:19:23
Subject: Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

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