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

Re: FSM search modes

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: decibel <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>,Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>,Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>,pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FSM search modes
Date: 2009-10-01 15:56:09
Message-ID: 20091001155609.GD5607@alvh.no-ip.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
decibel wrote:

> So while something that makes it easier to clean out the end of a
> table would be good, I think the critical need is a way to make
> vacuum more aggressive about obtaining the exclusive lock.

I wonder if we should have a different mode of operation that only
attempted the truncate (say VACUUM TRUNCATE), optionally being
non-conditional about obtaining the required lock.  That said, I wonder
even more whether any such hacks are still needed after the visilibity
map that changed the landscape for vacuum so dramatically.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-10-01 16:05:40
Subject: Re: FSM search modes
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-10-01 15:50:54
Subject: Re: Limit allocated memory per session

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