| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher |
| Date: | 2007-10-04 17:30:55 |
| Message-ID: | 24884.1191519055@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Gregory Stark escribi:
>> A crazy idea I just had -- what if you roll this into the deadlock check? So
>> after waiting on the lock for 1s it wakes up, finds that the holder it's
>> waiting on is an autovacuum process and cancels it instead of finding no
>> deadlock.
> Another crazy idea is to have some sort of "blacklist" of tables in
> shared memory. Any autovacuum process would skip those tables.
The deadlock check idea sounds promising to me, not least because it
avoids adding any cycles in performance-critical paths. I'm not certain
how easy it'd be to fold the idea into the checker though. That
logic is pretty complicated :-( and I'm not sure that it makes a
consistent effort to visit every possible blocker.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-10-04 17:45:35 | Re: Not *quite* there on ecpg fixes |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-10-04 16:55:57 | Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher |