From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Maxim Boguk <maxim(dot)boguk(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full) |
Date: | 2011-05-02 19:05:25 |
Message-ID: | m2zkn4udmy.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> So is it ok for inserting one row to cause my table to grow by 90GB?
> Or should there be some maximum size increment at which it stops
> growing? What should that maximum be? What if I'm on a big raid system
> where that size doesn't even add a block to every stripe element?
I'd think that capping the idea to the segment size makes sense.
Also, what about having a background process (bgwriter or autovacuum
come to mind) doing the work, rather than the backend that happens to be
inserting the row?
It could send a message, and continue creating a newer 8kb block if the
background process has not yet extended the storage. Also, to be safe I
guess we could arrange to have the new segment be created way before
reaching the very end of the relation (so that adding 8kb does not need
to create a new segment, so as to avoid a race condition with the
background process doing so itself).
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David carlos Manuelda | 2011-05-03 22:12:53 | BUG #6003: Cannot have a constraint foreign key on master class with inheritance |
Previous Message | Dickson S. Guedes | 2011-05-02 18:34:34 | Re: BUG #6000: error de instalacion |