From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each |
Date: | 2006-07-30 20:24:09 |
Message-ID: | 3432.1154291049@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Knew I should have taken time to review that patch before it went in ...
> Which one? The one I applied doesn't have this change.
Never mind --- I misunderstood the context of the discussion and thought
you had made larger changes in the last version of the patch than I was
expecting ...
The patch as committed looks fine to me, modulo a couple of comments
which I've fixed.
One thing that slightly troubles me is that GetOldestXmin will now
ignore a lazy vacuum's *own* xmin, which is not like the previous
behavior. Offhand I can't see a reason why this is not safe, but
maybe it'd have been better for it to do
+ if (ignoreVacuum && proc->inVacuum && proc != MyProc)
+ continue;
Thoughts?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-30 20:35:51 | Re: problem with volatile functions in subselects ? |
Previous Message | Tzahi Fadida | 2006-07-30 19:41:00 | 64 bits bitwise operations support |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2006-07-30 21:43:02 | [pstehule@ilikethis.cz: plperl enhancing return possibilities] |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-07-30 19:21:39 | Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each |