Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> writes:
> > Ühel kenal päeval, P, 2006-07-30 kell 14:11, kirjutas Alvaro Herrera:
> >> What was idea behind moving vac_update_relstats to a separate
> >> transaction? I'm wondering if it's still needed, if it further enhances
> >> the system somehow, or your patch did something differently than what
> >> was applied.
>
> > The part of transactions which actually modified the data (iirc it updates
> > relpages and reltuples in pg_class) is not safe to ignore by concurrent
> > vacuum, say a vacuum on pg_class .
>
> But that's done as a nontransactional update, or at least was the last
> time I looked, so there's no need to do it in a separate xact.
>
> Knew I should have taken time to review that patch before it went in ...

Which one? The one I applied doesn't have this change. (You are still
more than welcome to review it of course.)

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support