| From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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 23:04:39 |
| Message-ID: | 47017D07.9030006@zeut.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> If you insist on crafting a solution that only fixes this problem for
> pg_restore's narrow usage, you'll be back revisiting it before beta1
> has been out a month.
I don't know much about what is involved in crafting these solutions,
but it seems we're close to beta and probably don't want to make drastic
changes to anything. As such it seems to me that solving the problem
for analyze is a nice piece of low-hanging fruit that solves an
immediate problem that has been reported. I would think that reducing
the locking implications of VACUUM is much more involved, no? Also, I
would think that the fix for ANALYZE will be totally different than the
fix for VACUUM no?
Are you proposing that we solve the VACUUM locking problem before we
release 8.3?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-01 23:14:21 | Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-01 22:58:01 | Re: pgsql: Use BIO functions to avoid passing FILE * pointers to OpenSSL |