| From: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum locking |
| Date: | 2003-10-23 13:54:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20031023135445.GC17402@libertyrms.info |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 09:17:41AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Maybe, but only if it actually had reason to use a ton of memory ---
> that is, it were recycling a very large number of tuples in a single
> table. IIRC that didn't seem to be the case here.
Ah, that's what I was trying to ask. I didn't know if the memory was
actually taken by vacuum at the beginning (like shared memory is) or
what-all happened.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rob Nagler | 2003-10-23 15:15:34 | Re: vacuum locking |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-23 13:26:55 | Re: vacuum locking |