| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: We need to log aborted autovacuums |
| Date: | 2011-01-15 19:29:54 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=t_ay3Rq3LQW=N8VH9Tuj_npSufe88zLLChaaY@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Does try_relation_open need to have a lock acquisition timeout when AV
>> is calling it?
>
> Hmm. I think when looking at the AV code, I've always subconsciously
> assumed that try_relation_open would fail immediately if it couldn't get
> the lock. That certainly seems like it would be a more appropriate way
> to behave than delaying indefinitely.
I'm confused how that's not happening already. What does "try" mean, otherwise?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-15 19:31:21 | Re: ALTER TYPE 0: Introduction; test cases |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-15 19:27:21 | Re: LOCK for non-tables |