| From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Preventing duplicate vacuums? |
| Date: | 2004-02-06 22:32:04 |
| Message-ID: | 1076106724.30335.41.camel@camel |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 16:51, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
>
> > Yes we do: there's a lock.
>
> Sorry, bad test. Forget I said anything.
>
> Personally, I would like to have the 2nd vacuum error out instead of blocking.
> However, I'll bet that a lot of people won't agree with me.
>
Don't know if I would agree for sure, but i the second vacuum could see
that it is being blocked by the current vacuum, exiting out would be a
bonus, since in most scenarios you don't need to run that second vacuum
so it just ends up wasting resources (or clogging other things up with
it lock)
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-02-06 22:45:19 | Re: Why has postmaster shutdown gotten so slow? |
| Previous Message | markw | 2004-02-06 21:26:39 | Re: Proposed Query Planner TODO items |