From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Autovacuum cancellation |
Date: | 2007-10-26 09:49:21 |
Message-ID: | 87ve8uxl26.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> I think there's a window where the process waiting directly on
>> autovacuum could have already fired its deadlock check before it was
>> waiting directly on autovacuum.
>
> I think you don't understand what that code is doing. If there's an
> autovac anywhere in the dependency graph, it'll find it.
That'll teach me to try to read code from a patch directly without trying to
apply it or at least read the original source next to it. I thought I had seen
this code recently enough to apply the patch from memory -- clearly not.
I assume the right thing happens if multiple deadlock check signals fire for
the same autovacuum?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | User Mkz | 2007-10-26 11:35:28 | pgbouncer - pgbouncer: version 1.1.1 |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-10-26 09:32:09 | Re: Autovacuum cancellation |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sebastien FLAESCH | 2007-10-26 10:01:34 | PostgreSQL 8.3, libpq and WHERE CURRENT OF |
Previous Message | Gokulakannan Somasundaram | 2007-10-26 09:48:50 | Re: [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-10-26 10:16:41 | Re: [PATCHES] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes |
Previous Message | Gokulakannan Somasundaram | 2007-10-26 09:48:50 | Re: [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes |