| From: | Thomas Swan <tswan(at)idigx(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Preventing duplicate vacuums? |
| Date: | 2004-02-07 05:07:12 |
| Message-ID: | 40247280.2010102@idigx.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Treat wrote:
>On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 16:51, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>
>>Tom,
>>
>>
>>
>>>Yes we do: there's a lock.
>>>
>>>
>>Sorry, bad test. Forget I said anything.
>>
>>Personally, I would like to have the 2nd vacuum error out instead of blocking.
>>However, I'll bet that a lot of people won't agree with me.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Don't know if I would agree for sure, but i the second vacuum could see
>that it is being blocked by the current vacuum, exiting out would be a
>bonus, since in most scenarios you don't need to run that second vacuum
>so it just ends up wasting resources (or clogging other things up with
>it lock)
>
>
>
What about a situation where someone would have lazy vacuums cron'd and
it takes longer to complete the vacuum than the interval between
vacuums. You could wind up with an ever increasing queue of vacuums.
Erroring out with a "vacuum already in progress" might be useful.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2004-02-07 05:43:25 | Re: Preventing duplicate vacuums? |
| Previous Message | Carroll Kong | 2004-02-07 04:53:31 | Feature Request, allow binding of stat buffer daemon |