| From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Postgres Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Concurrent VACUUM and ANALYZE |
| Date: | 2008-07-22 01:29:20 |
| Message-ID: | 36e682920807211829i4775e91cx132ce809e074e3d5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> This means that VACUUM ANALYZE must grab both locks ... is there a
> gotcha here?
Agreed.
> The main problem I see with this idea is that the dead and total tuple
> count computed by ANALYZE would be immediately out of date, and if it
> happens to finish after VACUUM then it'll overwrite the values the
> latter just wrote, which are more correct. Not sure how serious a
> problem this is.
Agreed, but in the worst case, it's no different than running ANALYZE
immediately following a VACUUM.
-Jonah
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-22 01:32:57 | Re: [patch] plproxy v2 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-21 23:59:01 | Re: Concurrent VACUUM and ANALYZE |