Re: [ADMIN] Vacuum error on database postgres

> This behavior dates from a time when there was no good alternative.
> One possible fix today would be to make ANALYZE take
> ShareUpdateExclusive lock instead, thus ensuring there is only one
> ANALYZE at a time on a table. However I'm a bit concerned by the
> possibility that ANALYZE-inside-a-transaction could accumulate a
> whole bunch of such locks in a random order, leading at least to
> a risk of deadlocks against other ANALYZEs. (We have to hold the
> lock till commit, else we aren't fixing the problem.) Do we need a
> specialized lock type just for ANALYZE? Would sorting the target
> list of rel OIDs be enough? Perhaps it's not worth worrying about?
>

Why not an internal lock that people don't see? The behavior would the
following:

conn1: analyze foo;

conn2: analyze foo;

ERROR: analyze already running on foo

conn1: analyze foo;
conn2: analyze;

NOTICE: analyze full started, analyze running on foo, skipping foo

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/