| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher |
| Date: | 2007-10-01 22:53:40 |
| Message-ID: | 23795.1191279220@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> We should not allow VACUUM to be concurrent with either CREATE INDEX or
> ANALYZE, but then thats not the problem here anyway.
I can't believe anyone is short-sighted enough to think that.
The problem here is that autovac takes locks that block foreground
sessions that want exclusive locks. We've always known this and always
ignored it, but if autovac is on by default then it's going to be in
people's faces a lot more than it was before, and they won't be happy.
If you insist on crafting a solution that only fixes this problem for
pg_restore's narrow usage, you'll be back revisiting it before beta1
has been out a month.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-10-01 22:56:55 | Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-10-01 21:33:42 | Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher |