| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL |
| Date: | 2009-09-17 01:07:36 |
| Message-ID: | 1253149656.9666.99.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 11:40 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Another thing to think about is that lazy vacuum only shrinks the heap
> file if it happens to be able to acquire an access exclusive lock.
> Because vacuum can't be run inside a transaction block, I don't think
> there's currently a way to ensure that the heap file actually gets
> shrunk. How about we provide some way to make it acquire an access
> exclusive lock at the beginning, but still perform a lazy vacuum?
I think it would be useful to have an additional option to force VACUUM
to wait for the lock so it can truncate. It's annoying to have to re-run
VACUUM just to give it a chance at the lock again.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-17 01:08:19 | Re: generic copy options |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-09-17 01:02:34 | Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL |