Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Gregory Stark wrote:
> >> I have a question about what would happen for a transaction running a command
> >> like COPY FROM. Is it possible it would manage to arrange to have no live
> >> snapshots at all? So it would have no impact on concurrent VACUUMs? What about
> >> something running a large pg_restore?
> > Interesting idea.
> Indeed. Currently, COPY forcibly sets a snapshot on the off chance
> something will use it, but I could certainly see making that happen
> "lazily", ie not at all in the simple case.
> pg_restore is probably a lost cause, at least if you are running it
> in single-transaction mode. I guess there'd be tradeoffs as to whether
> to do that or not ...
The bottom line is that more optimizations for VACUUM dead tuple
identification are possible.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-03-27 02:16:31|
|Subject: Re: Improvement of procArray.xmin for VACUUM |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2007-03-27 02:11:32|
|Subject: Re: Improvement of procArray.xmin for VACUUM|