| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Maxim Boguk <maxim(dot)boguk(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full) |
| Date: | 2011-03-28 18:20:55 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinvJgdKC=-ScG-DTELSQu4etYVwr=+NGkvyhKKo@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I think we've had a number of pieces of evidence that suggest that
>> extending 8kB at a time is too costly, but I agree with Greg that the
>> idea of extending an arbitrarily large table by 10% at a time is
>> pretty frightening - that could involve allocating a gigantic amount
>> of space on a big table. I would be inclined to do something like
>> extend by 10% of table or 1MB, whichever is smaller.
>
> Sure, something like that sounds sane, though the precise numbers
> need some validation.
Yeah.
>> ... And a 1MB extension is probably also small enough
>> that we can do it in the foreground without too much of a hiccup.
>
> Less than convinced about this.
Well, I guess we can always try it and see.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2011-03-28 19:01:10 | Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-03-28 18:15:39 | Re: BUG #5950: backend terminating after altering table |