Re: [HACKERS] Why do we need pg_vlock?

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Why do we need pg_vlock?
Date: 1999-09-18 20:25:40
Message-ID: 199909182025.QAA18799@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> It seems to me there's no fundamental reason why there couldn't be
> two VACUUMs running concurrently in a database. With the locking
> we are doing now, it should be safe enough. So, I'd like to propose
> that we get rid of the pg_vlock lock file. It doesn't have any useful
> purpose but it does force manual intervention by the dbadmin to recover
> if a VACUUM crashes :-(
>
> Comments? Did I miss something about why we can't have more than one
> vacuum process?

I vote for removal. Lock files are hacks, usually.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lamar Owen 1999-09-18 20:27:08 Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-09-18 20:10:11 Re: [INTERFACES] Re: [HACKERS] changes in 6.4