Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Date: 2002-01-07 07:01:15
Message-ID: 3C3947BB.FD97D22C@tm.ee
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-odbc

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net> writes:
> > I misinterpreted the fact that new VACUUM will skip locked pages
>
> Huh? There is no such "fact".
>
> regards, tom lane

Was it not the case that instead of locking whole tables the new
vacuum locks only one page at a time. If it can't lock that page it
just moves to next one instead of waiting for other backend to release
its lock. At least I remember that this was the (proposed?) behaviour
once.

---------------
Hannu

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Holger Krug 2002-01-07 07:05:35 Re: Syntax changes in 7.2
Previous Message Marko Kreen 2002-01-07 05:34:50 Re: [HACKERS] pgcryto strangeness...

Browse pgsql-odbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-01-07 16:39:35 Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-01-07 02:32:39 Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem