| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL |
| Date: | 2009-09-17 16:32:28 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070909170932o62feac52wcc25887b08d56fa7@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Exactly. The application is typically going to throw a "concurrent
>> update" type of error when this happens, and we don't want magic
>> background operations to cause that.
>
> Would'nt current VACUUM FULL or CLUSTER cause much more grief in this
> situation ?
No. They take an exclusive lock on the table, so this situation can't
occur in those cases, which was Tom's point.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-17 16:36:34 | Re: opportunistic tuple freezing |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-17 16:31:42 | Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL |