| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher |
| Date: | 2007-10-12 15:02:02 |
| Message-ID: | 1192201322.4233.557.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 10:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > I think the best way to handle this is to have two limits.
> > First limit attempts to autovacuum, but can be cancelled.
> > When we hit second limit, sometime later, then autovacuum cannot be
> > cancelled.
>
> This seems like uselessly complex overdesign.
OK
> In short: put in the automatic lock cancel for regular vacuums, disable
> it for antiwraparound vacuums, but don't disable manual cancels; and
> definitely don't invent a complicated new set of behaviors around that.
That seemed more complex when I thought about that, but if we just use
SIGUSR2 for automatic cancels then this would be very simple.
Or did you have another design?
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-10-12 15:08:19 | Re: pg_tablespace_size() |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-12 14:58:14 | Re: pg_tablespace_size() |