On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> Claudio Freire <[email protected]> writes: > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Tom Lane wrote: > >>> Abhijit Menon-Sen <[email protected]> writes: > >>>> In the past, we've had situations where "everything is hung" turned > out > >>>> to be because of a script that ran manual VACUUM that was holding some > >>>> lock. It's admittedly not a huge problem, but it might be useful if a > >>>> manual VACUUM could be cancelled the way autovacuum can be. > > >>> I think the real answer to that is "stop using manual VACUUM". > > >> As much as I'm a fan of autovacuum, that's not always possible. > > > Or even recommended, unless the docs changed radically in the last > > couple of weeks. > > Actually, having just looked at the code in question, I think this whole > thread is based on an obsolete assumption. AFAICS, since commit b19e4250b > manual vacuum behaves exactly like autovacuum as far as getting kicked off > the exclusive lock is concerned. There's certainly not any tests for > autovacuum in lazy_truncate_heap() today. > I assumed he was a talking about the SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE used during the main work, not the ACCESS EXCLUSIVE one used during truncation. Cheers, Jeff
