Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>,pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each
Date: 2005-08-17 19:40:53
Message-ID: 5805.1124307653@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Just for the archives, attached is as far as I'd gotten with cleaning up
Hannu's patch before I realized that it wasn't doing what it needed to
do.  This fixes an end-of-transaction race condition (can't unset
inVacuum before xact end, unless you want OldestXmin going backwards
from the point of view of other people) and improves the documentation
of what's going on.  But unless someone can convince me that it's safe
to mess with GetSnapshotData, it's unlikely this'll ever get applied.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-08-17 19:54:07
Subject: Re: do we need inet_ntop check?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-08-17 18:48:09
Subject: Re: Missing CONCURRENT VACUUM (Was: Release notes for

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-08-17 19:46:22
Subject: Re: Trivial patch, silence CC warnings
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2005-08-17 17:48:51
Subject: Trivial patch, silence CC warnings

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group