From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: We need to log aborted autovacuums |
Date: | 2011-01-18 01:26:09 |
Message-ID: | 4D34EC31.50707@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/17/11 11:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Do we actually need a lock timeout either? The patch that was being
> discussed just involved failing if you couldn't get it immediately.
> I suspect that's sufficient for AV. At least, nobody's made a
> compelling argument why we need to expend a very substantially larger
> amount of work to do something different.
The argument is that a sufficiently busy table might never get
autovacuumed *at all*, whereas a small lock wait would allow autovacuum
to block incoming transactions and start work.
However, it's hard for me to imagine a real-world situation where a
table would be under repeated full-table-locks from multiple
connections. Can anyone else?
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dan Ports | 2011-01-18 01:26:11 | Re: SSI patch version 12 |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2011-01-18 01:23:35 | Re: Review: compact fsync request queue on overflow |