Tom Lane escribió: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > We should not allow VACUUM to be concurrent with either CREATE INDEX or > > ANALYZE, but then thats not the problem here anyway. > > I can't believe anyone is short-sighted enough to think that. > > The problem here is that autovac takes locks that block foreground > sessions that want exclusive locks. We've always known this and always > ignored it, but if autovac is on by default then it's going to be in > people's faces a lot more than it was before, and they won't be happy. > > If you insist on crafting a solution that only fixes this problem for > pg_restore's narrow usage, you'll be back revisiting it before beta1 > has been out a month.
So you say we should make any job that needs an exclusive lock on a table to be able to cancel a running autovac job? If we did that, autovac couldn't do very much of anything. If that's not what you're saying, I'm afraid I'm not getting it. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/5ZYLFMCVHXC Maybe there's lots of data loss but the records of data loss are also lost. (Lincoln Yeoh) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
