| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mindaugas <mind(at)bi(dot)lt> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum / full vacuum |
| Date: | 2006-01-18 16:55:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20060118165521.GC19933@surnet.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Mindaugas wrote:
> > >> Even a database-wide vacuum does not take locks on more than one table.
> > >> The table locks are acquired and released one by one, as the operation
> > >> proceeds.
> >
> > > Has that changed recently? I have always seen "vacuumdb" or SQL
> > > "VACUUM" (without table specifications) running as one long
> > > transaction which doesn't release the locks that it is granted until
> > > the end of the transaction.
> >
> > You sure? It's not supposed to, and watching a database-wide vacuum
> > with "select * from pg_locks" doesn't look to me like it ever has locks
> > on more than one table (plus the table's indexes and toast table).
>
> Are there some plans to remove vacuum altogether?
No, but there are plans to make it as automatic and unintrusive as
possible. (User configuration will probably always be needed.)
--
Alvaro Herrera Developer, http://www.PostgreSQL.org
FOO MANE PADME HUM
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Benjamin Arai | 2006-01-18 18:09:46 | 3WARE Card performance boost? |
| Previous Message | Chris Browne | 2006-01-18 16:54:21 | Re: Autovacuum / full vacuum |