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
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 |