| From: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_autovacuum not having enough suction ? |
| Date: | 2005-03-31 22:13:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20050331221335.GB19823@phlogiston.dyndns.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 06:21:24PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Can we issue a LOCK TABLE with a statement_timeout, and only do the
> VACUUM FULL if we can get a lock quickly? That seems like a plan.
I think someone else's remark in this thread is important, though:
autovacuum shouldn't ever block other transactions, and this approach
will definitely run that risk.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
A certain description of men are for getting out of debt, yet are
against all taxes for raising money to pay it off.
--Alexander Hamilton
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-03-31 23:23:10 | Re: [ADMIN] Excessive growth of pg_attribute and other system tables |
| Previous Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2005-03-31 21:16:07 | Re: [ADMIN] Excessive growth of pg_attribute and other system tables |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Poe | 2005-04-01 02:01:01 | Follow-Up: How to improve db performance with $7K? |
| Previous Message | PFC | 2005-03-31 21:28:03 | Re: Very long time to execute and Update, suggestions? |