| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | decibel <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FSM search modes |
| Date: | 2009-10-01 15:56:09 |
| Message-ID: | 20091001155609.GD5607@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
decibel wrote:
> So while something that makes it easier to clean out the end of a
> table would be good, I think the critical need is a way to make
> vacuum more aggressive about obtaining the exclusive lock.
I wonder if we should have a different mode of operation that only
attempted the truncate (say VACUUM TRUNCATE), optionally being
non-conditional about obtaining the required lock. That said, I wonder
even more whether any such hacks are still needed after the visilibity
map that changed the landscape for vacuum so dramatically.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-01 16:05:40 | Re: FSM search modes |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-10-01 15:50:54 | Re: Limit allocated memory per session |