Re: VACUUM (INTERRUPTIBLE)?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: VACUUM (INTERRUPTIBLE)?
Date: 2020-09-08 22:37:05
Message-ID: 1853414.1599604625@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> So it doesn't seem that useful to not make manual analyze interruptible?

I find the main attraction of this idea is that instead of saying
"autovacuum/autoanalyze have these magic behaviors", we can say
"autovacuum/autoanalyze use option FOO". So whatever behavior
autoanalyze has today, we should make available to manual analyze,
without quibbling too hard over how much of a use-case there is.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2020-09-08 22:41:42 Re: default partition and concurrent attach partition
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-09-08 22:13:58 Re: More aggressive vacuuming of temporary tables