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: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
Cc: 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: 2005-05-23 15:42:31
Message-ID: 8215.1116862951@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> writes:
> I can't think of any other cases where it could matter, as at least the
> work done inside vacuum_rel() itself seema non-rollbackable.

VACUUM FULL's tuple-moving is definitely roll-back-able, so it might be
prudent to only do this for lazy VACUUM.  But on the other hand, VACUUM
FULL holds an exclusive lock on the table so no one else is going to see
its effects concurrently anyway.

As I said, it needs more thought than I've been able to spare for it yet
...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-05-23 15:55:01
Subject: Re: inet increment w/ int8
Previous:From: --= Tono =--Date: 2005-05-23 15:26:38
Subject: Re: INSTEAD OF trigger on VIEWs

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2005-05-23 16:20:16
Subject: Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each
Previous:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2005-05-23 15:13:47
Subject: Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

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