| From: | Martín Marqués <martin(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464a3(at)gmail(dot)com>, Job <Job(at)colliniconsulting(dot)it>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: R: Vacuum full: alternatives? |
| Date: | 2016-06-20 14:42:21 |
| Message-ID: | CAPdiE1xHSa6FX2vdTfV=u4ABSE4uRcv9153pGcqf4_N05YiVWw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
2016-06-20 11:30 GMT-03:00 Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>:
> On 20/06/16 16:23, Martín Marqués wrote:
>>
>> That's not entirely true. Think about a SELECT which has to scan all
>> child tables.
>
> Or any SELECT on the parent at all. The planner needs to examine the
> CHECK constraints on the children and can't do it if the child is locked
> in ACCESS EXCLUSIVE mode.
Yeah, totally skipped my mind that, so partitioning is actually a bad
idea, if that's all they are looking to solve.
Thanks Vik for showing the oversight
--
Martín Marqués http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2016-06-20 14:52:24 | Re: R: Vacuum full: alternatives? |
| Previous Message | Alex Ignatov | 2016-06-20 14:40:47 | Re: R: Vacuum full: alternatives? |