| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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 04:29:12 |
| Message-ID: | 18898.1301286552@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
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.
> ... 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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-03-28 10:26:49 | Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-28 04:28:14 | Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full) |