| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: DROP TABLE and autovacuum |
| Date: | 2007-06-14 14:12:09 |
| Message-ID: | 20070614141209.GG5105@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> > Hmm, how about canceling only the cases of DROP TABLE, TRUNCATE and CLUSTER.
> > We will obviously not need the table after the commands. Other commands,
> > VACUUM (FULL), ANALYZE, CREATE INDEX (CONCURRENTLY), REINDEX and LOCK TABLE
> > still conflict with autovacuum, but I'll leave it as-is in the meantime.
>
> Well, all of DROP TABLE, TRUNCATE and CLUSTER seem safe -- and also,
> they will advance the table's relfrozenxid. No objection there.
Something worth considering, though unrelated to the topic at hand: what
happens with the table stats after CLUSTER? Should we cause an ANALYZE
afterwards? We could end up running with outdated statistics.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-06-14 15:55:29 | Re: Concurrent psql patch |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-06-14 14:10:31 | Re: Can autovac try to lock multiple tables at once? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-06-14 15:55:29 | Re: Concurrent psql patch |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-06-14 13:29:55 | Re: DROP TABLE and autovacuum |