Re: lazy vacuum and AccessExclusiveLock

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Jaromír Talíř <jaromir(dot)talir(at)nic(dot)cz>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: lazy vacuum and AccessExclusiveLock
Date: 2009-09-25 21:53:28
Message-ID: 6675.1253915608@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> An alternative solution would be to lower the vacuum delay settings before
> starting the truncating phase, but this doesn't work very well in autovacuum
> due to the autobalancing code (which can cause other processes to change our
> cost delay settings). This case could be considered in the balancing code, but
> it is simpler this way.

I don't think autovacuum has a problem --- if someone requests a
conflicting lock, autovac will get kicked off, no? The OP's problem
comes from doing a manual vacuum. Perhaps "don't do that" is a good
enough answer.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Steve Crawford 2009-09-25 22:15:29 pg_restore ordering questions
Previous Message Carlos Henrique Reimer 2009-09-25 21:28:01 Low values for cached size