On Sat, 2004-02-07 at 02:07, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don't know if I would agree for sure, but i the second vacuum could see
that it is being blocked by the current vacuum, exiting out would be a
bonus, since in most scenarios you don't need to run that second
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don't know if I would agree for sure, but i the second vacuum could see
that it is being blocked by the current vacuum, exiting out would be a
bonus, since in most scenarios you don't need to run that second vacuum
so it just ends up wasting resources (or
On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 16:51, Josh Berkus wrote:
Tom,
Yes we do: there's a lock.
Sorry, bad test. Forget I said anything.
Personally, I would like to have the 2nd vacuum error out instead of blocking.
However, I'll bet that a lot of people won't agree with me.
Don't know if I
Robert Treat wrote:
On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 16:51, Josh Berkus wrote:
Tom,
Yes we do: there's a lock.
Sorry, bad test. Forget I said anything.
Personally, I would like to have the 2nd vacuum error out instead of blocking.
However, I'll bet that a lot of people won't agree with
What about a situation where someone would have lazy vacuums cron'd and
it takes longer to complete the vacuum than the interval between
vacuums. You could wind up with an ever increasing queue of vacuums.
Erroring out with a vacuum already in progress might be useful.
I have seen this
Folks,
Just occurred to me that we have no code to prevent a user from running two
simultaneos lazy vacuums on the same table.I can't think of any
circumstance why running two vacuums would be desirable behavior; how
difficult would it be to make this an exception?
This becomes a more
On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 15:37, Josh Berkus wrote:
Folks,
Just occurred to me that we have no code to prevent a user from running two
simultaneos lazy vacuums on the same table.I can't think of any
circumstance why running two vacuums would be desirable behavior; how
difficult would it
Rod,
You have a 8 billion row table with some very high turn over tuples
(lots of updates to a few thousand rows). A partial or targeted vacuum
would be best, failing that you kick them off fairly frequently,
especially if IO isn't really an issue.
Yes, but we don't have partial or targeted
Tom,
Yes we do: there's a lock.
Sorry, bad test. Forget I said anything.
Personally, I would like to have the 2nd vacuum error out instead of blocking.
However, I'll bet that a lot of people won't agree with me.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
