| From: | Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Why do we need pg_vlock? |
| Date: | 1999-09-20 01:25:47 |
| Message-ID: | 37E58D1B.F7196D10@krs.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > It seems to me there's no fundamental reason why there couldn't be
> > two VACUUMs running concurrently in a database. With the locking
> > we are doing now, it should be safe enough. So, I'd like to propose
> > that we get rid of the pg_vlock lock file. It doesn't have any useful
> > purpose but it does force manual intervention by the dbadmin to recover
> > if a VACUUM crashes :-(
> >
> > Comments? Did I miss something about why we can't have more than one
> > vacuum process?
>
> I vote for removal. Lock files are hacks, usually.
Agreed.
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vadim Mikheev | 1999-09-20 01:56:40 | Re: [HACKERS] Anyone understand shared buffer refcount mechanism? |
| Previous Message | Vadim Mikheev | 1999-09-20 01:24:31 | Re: [HACKERS] Notice: heap_open/close changes committed |