Heikki Linnakangas escribió: > In my opinion, CREATE INDEX shouldn't need to wait for autovacuum to > finish, regardless of who issued it. This is like priority inversion; > the autovacuum is not urgent, and runs slowly to avoid disturbing > others. But if it keeps the higher priority CREATE INDEX from starting, > it is disturbing others. Could we arrange things so that the effective > cost delay of the autovacuum process that's in the way gets set to 0 > (like priority inheritance)?
This is an interesting idea, but I think it's attacking the wrong problem. To me, the problem here is that an ANALYZE should not block CREATE INDEX or certain forms of ALTER TABLE. We do have a mechanism for changing the cost-delay parameters of an autovac worker, but even if we made it to work, it would still delay the other operation needlessly until the end of the analyze. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
