| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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 03:07:28 |
| Message-ID: | 1253156848.12967.6.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 21:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, I was just wondering about that myself. Seems like there would
> be lots of situations where short exclusive-lock intervals could be
> tolerated, even though not long ones.
But a short-lived exclusive lock can turn into a long-lived exclusive
lock if there are long-lived transactions ahead of it in the queue. We
probably don't want to automate anything by default that acquires
exclusive locks, even for a short time. However, I agree that it's fine
in many situations if the administrator is choosing it.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-17 03:12:46 | Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-17 01:48:20 | Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL |