From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: (auto)vacuum truncate exclusive lock |
Date: | 2013-04-18 15:44:45 |
Message-ID: | 517014ED.2060502@Yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/12/2013 2:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>
>> Are you saying you intend to revert that whole concept? That'd be
>> okay with me, I think. Otherwise we need some thought about how to
>> inform the stats collector what's really happening.
>
> Maybe what we need is to consider table truncation as a separate
> activity from vacuuming. Then autovacuum could invoke it without having
> to do a full-blown vacuum. For this to work, I guess we would like to
> separately store the status of the back-scan in pgstat somehow (I think
> a boolean flag suffices: "were we able to truncate all pages that
> appeared to be empty?")
Should have read the entire thread before responding :)
Jan
--
Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither
liberty nor security. -- Benjamin Franklin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2013-04-18 15:46:24 | Re: (auto)vacuum truncate exclusive lock |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2013-04-18 15:44:02 | Re: (auto)vacuum truncate exclusive lock |