Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: autovacuum and default_transaction_isolation

From: Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: autovacuum and default_transaction_isolation
Date: 2011-11-30 00:34:00
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 07:04:23PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmm.  Shouldn't we make the autovac launcher use READ COMMITTED, too?

Yeah, probably. That one doesn't seem so important because its
transactions aren't long-running (IIRC, it only starts a transaction to
scan pg_database). But it wouldn't hurt to keep it from pointlessly
registering a serializable transaction.


Dan R. K. Ports              MIT CSAIL      

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Daniel FarinaDate: 2011-11-30 02:10:48
Subject: backup_label during crash recovery: do we know how to solve it?
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2011-11-30 00:33:48
Subject: Re: autovacuum and default_transaction_isolation

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group