| From: | Yann Michel <yann-postgresql(at)spline(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Yann Michel <yann-postgresql(at)spline(dot)de>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PG_DUMP and table locking in PG7.4 |
| Date: | 2005-11-16 20:43:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20051116204325.GB22667@zoom.spline.inf.fu-berlin.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 10:07:24AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yann Michel <yann-postgresql(at)spline(dot)de> writes:
> > Well, now that I'm thinking about, what you've written I think this is
> > exactly the point. I think, that there is a VACUUM waiting for the dump
> > to finish whereas the INSERTS are waiting for the VACUUM to finish.
>
> Only if it's a VACUUM FULL ... plain VACUUM neither blocks INSERT nor is
> blocked by pg_dump.
>
> The short answer may be "don't use VACUUM FULL" (at least not for
> routine automatic vacuums).
... I guiess that the AUTOVACUUM switch only does an automated VACUUM
but no VACUUM FULL?
Cheers,
Yann
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-11-16 20:50:29 | Re: Some array semantics issues |
| Previous Message | Yann Michel | 2005-11-16 20:39:41 | Re: PG_DUMP and table locking in PG7.4 |