| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: We need to log aborted autovacuums |
| Date: | 2011-01-16 20:50:08 |
| Message-ID: | 4D335A00.8080302@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/16/11 11:19 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I would prefer it if we had a settable lock timeout, as suggested many
> moons ago. When that was discussed before it was said there was no
> difference between a statement timeout and a lock timeout, but I think
> there clearly is, this case being just one example.
Whatever happend to lock timeouts, anyway? We even had some patches
floating around for 9.0 and they disappeared.
However, we'd want a separate lock timeout for autovac, of course. I'm
not at all keen on a *statement* timeout on autovacuum; as long as
autovacuum is doing work, I don't want to cancel it. Also, WTF would we
set it to?
Going the statement timeout route seems like a way to create a LOT of
extra work, troubleshooting, getting it wrong, and releasing patch
updates. Please let's just create a lock timeout.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-01-16 20:51:56 | Re: pg_stat_replication security |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-01-16 20:12:11 | Re: What happened to open_sync_without_odirect? |