From: | Maxim Boguk <maxim(dot)boguk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full) |
Date: | 2011-03-25 21:43:03 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=RtuZSVLUwWWfrEbYkA19thJ82Ub67ODTRPkux@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Maxim Boguk" <Maxim(dot)Boguk(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > In my case vacuum tried to truncate last 10-15GB from 100Gb relation, and
> > each time (3) it was cost 10+ minutes of service downtime (because that
> > table was completely locked).
>
> > Is that correct behaviour? Are here any way to speedup that process or
> at
> > least allow read-only queries during that time?
>
> Use autovacuum --- if there's something that wants to access the table,
> autovac will get kicked off the lock. (Of course, the table may never
> get truncated then, but maybe you don't care.)
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Thank you for an idea.
Are having lots empty pages at end of the table can have any negative impact
on database performance (assuming I have plenty of free disk space)?
In my case these 100Gb table going to be reduced to 20Gb size actual data
located at start of the table, so I worry about possible negative impact of
having extra 80Gb free space at end of the table.
Regards,
Maxim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2011-03-25 21:46:21 | Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-03-25 21:34:52 | Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full) |