| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2 |
| Date: | 2007-02-27 03:05:23 |
| Message-ID: | 9972.1172545523@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
[ oh, I forgot to respond to this: ]
"Jim C. Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
> Isn't there a special lock acquired on a relation by vacuum? Can't we
> just check for that?
I think you're thinking that ConditionalLockRelation solves the problem,
but it does not, because it will fail if someone has taken a (quasi)
exclusive lock unrelated to vacuuming. You don't want an application
that frequently takes short-term ExclusiveLocks on a table to thereby
cause autovacuum to frequently skip that table.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-02-27 03:05:25 | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-27 03:02:47 | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2 |