From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: TODO updates |
Date: | 1999-11-23 04:58:08 |
Message-ID: | 4255.943333088@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
>>>> removal of the whole pg_vlock requirement on vacuum?
>>
>> I have that on my to-do list; as far as I know it's a trivial code
>> change, but I just haven't gotten to it. Maybe I'll try it tonight.
> is this something that could safely be back-patched into v6.5.x's tree?
Well, mumble. We could probably back-patch the ability to run more than
one vacuum at a time, since that'd be local to vacuum.c. But I think
that'd encourage people to run vacuum in parallel with *other* database
activities, something we know is not very safe in 6.5! That whole
set of changes I made to enforce more careful locking was mainly
motivated by Oleg's examples of crashes when system table changes were
made in parallel with vacuuming of the system tables.
In short, I think it'd be a risky thing to do. I'm not even 100%
confident that it will work reliably in current sources; I'll check
it out before I commit it, but I won't be really comfortable until
we've had a beta-test cycle on it...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-11-23 06:41:05 | Concurrent VACUUM: first results |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-11-23 04:48:16 | Re: [HACKERS] System cache index cleanup |