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 tha
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 resource
> 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
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 me
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
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
--
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 target
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 woul
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just occurred to me that we have no code to prevent a user from running two
> simultaneos lazy vacuums on the same table.
Yes we do: there's a lock.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)-
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 cruc
10 matches
Mail list logo
