On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > On 1/17/11 11:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Do we actually need a lock timeout either? The patch that was being >> discussed just involved failing if you couldn't get it immediately. >> I suspect that's sufficient for AV. At least, nobody's made a >> compelling argument why we need to expend a very substantially larger >> amount of work to do something different. > > The argument is that a sufficiently busy table might never get > autovacuumed *at all*, whereas a small lock wait would allow autovacuum > to block incoming transactions and start work. > > However, it's hard for me to imagine a real-world situation where a > table would be under repeated full-table-locks from multiple > connections. Can anyone else?
I'm not convinced we need a lock timeout for autovacuum. I think it'd be useful to expose on a user-level, but that's a different can of worms. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
