Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full)
Date: 2011-03-29 00:07:18
Message-ID: 2550.1301357238@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> I somehow fail to see how this complete reversal of who does what and
> affecting code in entirely different parts of the system will qualify
> for patching back releases.

I don't think any of the proposals make sense for back-patching. We
should be considering what's the sanest way to fix this in 9.2.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Wieck 2011-03-29 00:48:03 Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full)
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2011-03-28 23:55:57 Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full)