| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
| Date: | 2002-01-07 07:01:15 |
| Message-ID: | 3C3947BB.FD97D22C@tm.ee |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-odbc |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net> writes:
> > I misinterpreted the fact that new VACUUM will skip locked pages
>
> Huh? There is no such "fact".
>
> regards, tom lane
Was it not the case that instead of locking whole tables the new
vacuum locks only one page at a time. If it can't lock that page it
just moves to next one instead of waiting for other backend to release
its lock. At least I remember that this was the (proposed?) behaviour
once.
---------------
Hannu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Holger Krug | 2002-01-07 07:05:35 | Re: Syntax changes in 7.2 |
| Previous Message | Marko Kreen | 2002-01-07 05:34:50 | Re: [HACKERS] pgcryto strangeness... |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-07 16:39:35 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-07 02:32:39 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |