Tom Lane escribió:
> [ on further thought ]
> "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
> >> ... solving the problem
> >> for analyze is a nice piece of low-hanging fruit that solves an
> >> immediate problem that has been reported.
> Actually, if you wanted a low-hanging solution to that, it would
> probably be to revert this 8.2 patch:
> We did that because people were complaining of unexpected failures in
> manual ANALYZEs, but perhaps the cure is worse than the disease.
How about getting ShareUpdateExclusiveLock on manual analyze and plain
AccessShareLock on autovacuum-induced analyze?
Alvaro Herrera http://www.advogato.org/person/alvherre
"I must say, I am absolutely impressed with what pgsql's implementation of
VALUES allows me to do. It's kind of ridiculous how much "work" goes away in
my code. Too bad I can't do this at work (Oracle 8/9)." (Tom Allison)
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2007-10-01 23:46:52|
|Subject: Re: PG on NFS may be just a bad idea|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-10-01 23:35:36|
|Subject: Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher |