From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each |
Date: | 2006-07-30 19:19:23 |
Message-ID: | 3076.1154287163@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> writes:
> hel kenal peval, P, 2006-07-30 kell 14:11, kirjutas Alvaro Herrera:
>> What was idea behind moving vac_update_relstats to a separate
>> transaction? I'm wondering if it's still needed, if it further enhances
>> the system somehow, or your patch did something differently than what
>> was applied.
> The part of transactions which actually modified the data (iirc it updates
> relpages and reltuples in pg_class) is not safe to ignore by concurrent
> vacuum, say a vacuum on pg_class .
But that's done as a nontransactional update, or at least was the last
time I looked, so there's no need to do it in a separate xact.
Knew I should have taken time to review that patch before it went in ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-07-30 19:21:39 | Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-07-30 19:18:34 | Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-07-30 19:21:39 | Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-07-30 19:18:34 | Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each |