| From: | Ed Loehr <eloehr(at)austin(dot)rr(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | brianb <brianb-pggeneral(at)evoserve(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum Question |
| Date: | 2000-06-02 14:44:46 |
| Message-ID: | 3937C85E.88ADA7EC@austin.rr.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "brianb" <brianb-pggeneral(at)evoserve(dot)com> writes:
> > I have a Postgres application that must run 24x7. If postgres needs to be
> > vacuumed periodically, must I take the application offline completely, or
> > is it enough to disallow write (INSERT/UPDATE) access while allowing read
> > access?
>
> The short answer is that a table being vacuumed is locked against any
> other access, read or write; but only that one table. You might as
> well leave the rest of the database open for use.
I take it you don't give much credence to the previous reports that
concurrently writing during vacuuming caused corruption? Was that a
previous problem that's fixed now?
Regards,
Ed Loehr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2000-06-02 14:48:57 | Re: query optimiser changes 6.5->7.0 |
| Previous Message | Marcos Barreto de Castro | 2000-06-02 11:29:30 | Operations widh CURSORS |