Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> So you say we should make any job that needs an exclusive lock on a
> table to be able to cancel a running autovac job?
I think we're going to be seeing complaints of this form until we do that.
The only reason this particular discussion is about pg_restore is that
that's the OP's first exposure to 8.3.
> If we did that, autovac couldn't do very much of anything.
In the worst case autovac could be starved out for a long time.
I don't have any immediate good idea about how to fix that, but
the worst consequences could be avoided if we disable the cancellation
ability when running an anti-wraparound vacuum. Further down the road
(*not* 8.3), when we teach autovac about maintenance windows, it might
also disregard cancels during a maintenance window.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-10-01 23:25:16|
|Subject: Re: PG on NFS may be just a bad idea |
|Previous:||From: Matthew T. O'Connor||Date: 2007-10-01 23:04:39|
|Subject: Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher|