Re: allowing VACUUM to be cancelled for conflicting locks

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: allowing VACUUM to be cancelled for conflicting locks
Date: 2014-04-28 18:05:04
Message-ID: 23606.1398708304@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I don't think this is about the truncation thing, but about the
> deadlock.c/proc.c logic around DS_BLOCKED_BY_AUTOVACUUM. I.e. that a
> autovacuum is cancelled if user code tries to acquire a conflicting
> lock.

It's a bit of a stretch to claim that a manual VACUUM should be cancelled
by a manual DDL action elsewhere. Who's to say which of those things
should have priority?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-04-28 18:07:04 Re: allowing VACUUM to be cancelled for conflicting locks
Previous Message Jeff Janes 2014-04-28 18:03:53 Re: allowing VACUUM to be cancelled for conflicting locks