| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: allowing VACUUM to be cancelled for conflicting locks |
| Date: | 2014-04-28 18:21:05 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1yCWsf11PWfo5sBjnHMgaS6Q_s-++Zh6F08GCftvCH-0w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > I don't think this is about the truncation thing, but about the
> > deadlock.c/proc.c logic around DS_BLOCKED_BY_AUTOVACUUM. I.e. that a
> > autovacuum is cancelled if user code tries to acquire a conflicting
> > lock.
>
> It's a bit of a stretch to claim that a manual VACUUM should be cancelled
> by a manual DDL action elsewhere. Who's to say which of those things
> should have priority?
>
The proposal was to add either a GUC, or a syntax to the vacuum command, so
it would be either DBA or the invoker of the vacuum which is the one to
say. Either one does seem a reasonable place to have such a say, although
perhaps not worth the effort to implement.
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-04-28 18:41:38 | Re: Clock sweep not caching enough B-Tree leaf pages? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-04-28 18:07:04 | Re: allowing VACUUM to be cancelled for conflicting locks |