| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mike Schanne <mschanne(at)kns(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "'pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum locking question |
| Date: | 2019-12-06 17:12:19 |
| Message-ID: | 16067.1575652339@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Mike Schanne <mschanne(at)kns(dot)com> writes:
> Is this what you are referring to?
> - Prevent VACUUM from trying to freeze an old multixact ID involving a still-running transaction (Nathan Bossart, Jeremy Schneider)
> This case would lead to VACUUM failing until the old transaction terminates.
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/release/9.6.16/
Hmmm ... after digging through the commit log, it seems the improvements
I was thinking of were all pre-9.6. The only post-9.6 vacuum truncation
performance fix I can find is
https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git&a=commitdiff&h=7e26e02ee
which came in in v10.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Schanne | 2019-12-06 17:18:20 | unexpected result for wastedbytes query after vacuum full |
| Previous Message | Mike Schanne | 2019-12-06 15:55:32 | RE: autovacuum locking question |