| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Block level parallel vacuum WIP |
| Date: | 2016-10-03 02:00:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqT36F5f9yp6L-Xvh3xPjhsYb+mmq==Mn5-cRMTTMzFyjA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Yeah, I don't have a good solution for this problem so far.
> We might need to improve group locking mechanism for the updating
> operation or came up with another approach to resolve this problem.
> For example, one possible idea is that the launcher process allocates
> vm and fsm enough in advance in order to avoid extending fork relation
> by parallel workers, but it's not resolve fundamental problem.
Marked as returned with feedback because of lack of activity and...
Feedback provided.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-10-03 02:06:18 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Copy-editing for contrib/pg_visibility documentation. |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2016-10-03 02:00:12 | Re: pg_upgade vs config |