Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sure, it can do that. I think it's easy enough to correct this problem;
> > see attached patch. Should this be backpatched? Earlier releases also
> > fall foul of this problem AFAICT.
>
> Yeah, because what made me think about it
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sure, it can do that. I think it's easy enough to correct this problem;
> see attached patch. Should this be backpatched? Earlier releases also
> fall foul of this problem AFAICT.
Yeah, because what made me think about it was a gripe from an 8.2
user
Tom Lane wrote:
> $subject would be bad because of potential deadlocks against other
> transactions that might try to exclusive-lock more than one table.
>
> We should be OK for actual vacuum operations, but I think that if
> autovac chooses to just ANALYZE multiple tables, it will do it in
> one
$subject would be bad because of potential deadlocks against other
transactions that might try to exclusive-lock more than one table.
We should be OK for actual vacuum operations, but I think that if
autovac chooses to just ANALYZE multiple tables, it will do it in
one transaction and accumulate l
