| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
| Cc: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum improvement |
| Date: | 2002-10-16 14:17:34 |
| Message-ID: | 24055.1034777854@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> meaning to VACUUM FULL the whole table, but to work in small chunks and
> relaese all locks and let others access the tables between these ?
AFAICS this is impossible for VACUUM FULL. You can't let other accesses
in and then resume processing, because that invalidates all the state
you have about where to put moved tuples.
But the whole point of developing non-FULL vacuuming was to make
something that could be run concurrently with other stuff. I fail
to see the point of insisting that frequent vacuums be FULL.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Copeland | 2002-10-16 14:21:54 | Re: Postgresql and multithreading |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-16 14:03:35 | Re: droped out precise time calculations in src/interfaces/libpq/fe-connect.c |