From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher |
Date: | 2007-10-01 17:35:41 |
Message-ID: | 18468.1191260141@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> I realize this isn't directly addressing the problem but perhaps part of the
> solution would be to start advocating the use of pg_restore -1 ? That would
> solve the problem for the narrow case of pg_restore.
Well, that would do as a quick workaround, as would disabling autovacuum
during the restore.
> In the long run we could think about exposing some kind of command for
> pg_restore to use which would disable autovacuum from touching a
> table.
Ugh. I think a real solution probably involves a mechanism that kicks
autovacuum off a table when someone else wants an exclusive lock on it.
This is a little bit worrisome because a steady stream of lock requests
could prevent autovac from ever finishing the table, but it seems clear
that not doing this is going to make autovac a lot more intrusive than
people will stand for.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-10-01 17:42:41 | Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-01 17:24:41 | Re: [HACKERS] PG on NFS may be just a bad idea |