| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | "Vadim Mikheev" <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Concurrent VACUUM: first results |
| Date: | 1999-11-26 06:36:18 |
| Message-ID: | 14895.943598178@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> I wonder whether there isn't a cleaner way to do this.
> I think there exists another reason.
> We couldn't delete index tuples for deleted but not yet committed
> heap tuples.
My first thought was "Good point". But my second was "why should
vacuum need to deal with that case?". If vacuum grabs an exclusive
lock on a relation, it should *not* ever see tuples with uncertain
commit status, no?
> If we could start another transaction without releasing exclusive
> lock for the target relation,it would be better.
Seems like that might be doable, if we really do need it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vadim Mikheev | 1999-11-26 06:38:32 | Re: [HACKERS] Concurrent VACUUM: first results |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 1999-11-26 06:24:47 | RE: [HACKERS] Concurrent VACUUM: first results |