| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Question about (lazy) vacuum |
| Date: | 2006-08-23 14:35:26 |
| Message-ID: | 19070.1156343726@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> writes:
> hel kenal peval, K, 2006-08-23 kell 05:23, kirjutas Gregory Stark:
>> global xmin it just occurred to me to wonder: Does lazy vacuum need a
>> transaction at all?
> When I asked the same question, I was told that a lot of core
> functionality vacuum uses needs to be in transaction.
Locks for instance; you certainly need a lock on the table. In general
a whole lot of the backend functionality is bound up in the transaction
start/stop mechanisms, and quite a bit of rearchitecting would be needed
to do very much outside a transaction. Doesn't really seem worth it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | stark | 2006-08-23 14:43:43 | Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-08-23 14:21:31 | Re: Some minor changes to pgbench |