Re: CLUSTER vs toast vacuuming: there's still a problem

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CLUSTER vs toast vacuuming: there's still a problem
Date: 2011-04-30 19:34:09
Message-ID: 075423D8-50E5-42E7-8797-A945D0574675@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Apr 30, 2011, at 8:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I wonder though if it wouldn't be smarter
> to insist that autovacuum acquire some lock on the main table
> when processing a toast table.

Boy, it sure seems better to avoid the above if we can. So +1 for the other way around - make CLUSTER lock the TOAST table if it cares about a VACUUM happening there.

...Robert

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-04-30 19:38:53 Re: increasing collapse_limits?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-04-30 19:30:03 Re: branching for 9.2devel