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

Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each
Date: 2006-07-30 19:19:23
Message-ID: 3076.1154287163@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> writes:
> hel kenal peval, P, 2006-07-30 kell 14:11, kirjutas Alvaro Herrera:
>> What was idea behind moving vac_update_relstats to a separate
>> transaction?  I'm wondering if it's still needed, if it further enhances
>> the system somehow, or your patch did something differently than what
>> was applied.

> The part of transactions which actually modified the data (iirc it updates
> relpages and reltuples in pg_class) is not safe to ignore by concurrent 
> vacuum, say a vacuum on pg_class .

But that's done as a nontransactional update, or at least was the last
time I looked, so there's no need to do it in a separate xact.

Knew I should have taken time to review that patch before it went in ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2006-07-30 19:21:39
Subject: Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2006-07-30 19:18:34
Subject: Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2006-07-30 19:21:39
Subject: Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2006-07-30 19:18:34
Subject: Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

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