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: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, 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 20:24:09
Message-ID: 3432.1154291049@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Knew I should have taken time to review that patch before it went in ...

> Which one?  The one I applied doesn't have this change.

Never mind --- I misunderstood the context of the discussion and thought
you had made larger changes in the last version of the patch than I was
expecting ...

The patch as committed looks fine to me, modulo a couple of comments
which I've fixed.

One thing that slightly troubles me is that GetOldestXmin will now
ignore a lazy vacuum's *own* xmin, which is not like the previous
behavior.  Offhand I can't see a reason why this is not safe, but
maybe it'd have been better for it to do

+ 		if (ignoreVacuum && proc->inVacuum && proc != MyProc)
+ 			continue;

Thoughts?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-07-30 20:35:51
Subject: Re: problem with volatile functions in subselects ?
Previous:From: Tzahi FadidaDate: 2006-07-30 19:41:00
Subject: 64 bits bitwise operations support

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: David FetterDate: 2006-07-30 21:43:02
Subject: [pstehule@ilikethis.cz: plperl enhancing return possibilities]
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2006-07-30 19:21:39
Subject: Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

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