| From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher |
| Date: | 2007-10-01 20:40:21 |
| Message-ID: | 47015B35.6000600@zeut.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>
>> This is an interesting idea, but I think it's attacking the wrong
>> problem. To me, the problem here is that an ANALYZE should not block
>> CREATE INDEX or certain forms of ALTER TABLE.
>>
>
> I doubt that that will work; in particular I'm pretty dubious that you
> can safely make CREATE INDEX and VACUUM run together. Since they'd be
> unlikely to be using the identical OldestXmin horizon, you'd likely end
> up with dangling index entries (ie, CREATE INDEX indexes a tuple that
> the VACUUM removes shortly afterward).
I think the main issue is ANALYZE not VACUUM (at least in this thread)
since it's DB load times that are in question. Can CREATE INDEX and
ANALYZE be made to run concurrently?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-10-01 20:50:07 | Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-10-01 20:30:06 | pgsql: Use BIO functions to avoid passing FILE * pointers to OpenSSL |