| From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Concurrent VACUUM and ANALYZE |
| Date: | 2008-07-22 04:31:26 |
| Message-ID: | 4885629E.3080109@zeut.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> I don't find this a compelling argument, at least not without proof that
>> the various vacuum-improvement projects already on the radar screen
>> (DSM-driven vacuum, etc) aren't going to fix your problem.
>>
>
> Is DSM going to be in 8.4? The last I had heard, DSM+related
> improvements weren't close to being guaranteed for this release. If
> it doesn't make it, waiting another year and a half for something
> easily fixed would be fairly unacceptable. Should I provide a patch
> in the event that DSM doesn't make it?
Can't hurt to submit a patch. Also, could you do something to help
mitigate the worse case, something like don't update the stats in
pg_class if the analyze finishes after a vacuum has finished since the
current analyze started?
Matt
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | daveg | 2008-07-22 05:57:35 | Re: pg_dump lock timeout |
| Previous Message | Owen Hartnett | 2008-07-22 03:53:19 | Re: Schema-qualified statements in pg_dump output |