| From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp" <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: Improve behavior of concurrent ANALYZE/VACUUM |
| Date: | 2018-08-23 21:53:57 |
| Message-ID: | 9D59EDA3-B075-4EA9-A0F7-28C1E775AAAA@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/23/18, 12:08 AM, "Michael Paquier" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> Normal regression tests are less costly than isolation tests, so let's
> use them as possible. What you attached is covering only a portion of
> all the scenarios though, as it is as well interesting to see what
> happens if another user owns only the partitioned table, only one
> partition, and the partitioned as well as at least one partition. I
> have extended your patch as attached. It applies on top of HEAD. Once
> applied with the other patch one can easily stop the difference in
> behavior, and this stresses the ownership checks in vacuum_rel() and
> analyze_rel() as well. Perhaps we could begin by that?
This seems reasonable to me. I think establishing the expected
behavior here is a good idea.
Nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2018-08-23 22:06:08 | Re: Flexible configuration for full-text search |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-08-23 20:02:26 | Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) |