| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(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 23:14:21 |
| Message-ID: | 24041.1191280461@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> So you say we should make any job that needs an exclusive lock on a
> table to be able to cancel a running autovac job?
I think we're going to be seeing complaints of this form until we do that.
The only reason this particular discussion is about pg_restore is that
that's the OP's first exposure to 8.3.
> If we did that, autovac couldn't do very much of anything.
In the worst case autovac could be starved out for a long time.
I don't have any immediate good idea about how to fix that, but
the worst consequences could be avoided if we disable the cancellation
ability when running an anti-wraparound vacuum. Further down the road
(*not* 8.3), when we teach autovac about maintenance windows, it might
also disregard cancels during a maintenance window.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-01 23:25:16 | Re: PG on NFS may be just a bad idea |
| Previous Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2007-10-01 23:04:39 | Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher |