| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL |
| Date: | 2016-09-07 12:50:49 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+jJREXgg=AR+MutOsrptPZz+v5FaTHNZQNWwVjty-Fo9hQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 7 September 2016 at 13:47, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Fix VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL
>>
>> lazy_truncate_heap() was waiting for
>> VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL, but in microseconds
>> not milliseconds as originally intended.
>
> Don't we need to back-patch this?
If we do then a database-wide VACUUM on a busy database will take
substantially longer than it does now.
That may not be perceived as a "fix" by everybody, so we should not do
it without an explicit agreement by many.
Thoughts?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-07 13:58:16 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2016-09-07 12:47:08 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-09-07 12:50:52 | Re: WAL consistency check facility |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2016-09-07 12:47:08 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL |