Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

2006-07-30 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Bruce Momjian wrote: Alvaro has just applied a modified version of this patch. Hannu, I'm curious: Hannu Krosing wrote: Ok, this is a new version of the vacuum patch with the following changes following some suggestions in this thread. * changed the patch to affect only lazy vacuum

Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

2006-07-30 Thread Hannu Krosing
Ühel kenal päeval, P, 2006-07-30 kell 14:11, kirjutas Alvaro Herrera: Bruce Momjian wrote: Alvaro has just applied a modified version of this patch. Hannu, I'm curious: Hannu Krosing wrote: Ok, this is a new version of the vacuum patch with the following changes following some

Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

2006-07-30 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Hannu Krosing wrote: Ühel kenal päeval, P, 2006-07-30 kell 14:11, kirjutas Alvaro Herrera: What was idea behind moving vac_update_relstats to a separate transaction? I'm wondering if it's still needed, if it further enhances the system somehow, or your patch did something differently than

Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

2006-07-30 Thread Tom Lane
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ühel kenal päeval, P, 2006-07-30 kell 14:11, kirjutas Alvaro Herrera: What was idea behind moving vac_update_relstats to a separate transaction? I'm wondering if it's still needed, if it further enhances the system somehow, or your patch did something

Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

2006-07-30 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ühel kenal päeval, P, 2006-07-30 kell 14:11, kirjutas Alvaro Herrera: What was idea behind moving vac_update_relstats to a separate transaction? I'm wondering if it's still needed, if it further enhances the system somehow, or

Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

2006-07-30 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: Knew I should have taken time to review that patch before it went in ... Which one? The one I applied doesn't have this change. Never mind --- I misunderstood the context of the discussion and thought you had made larger changes in the

Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

2006-07-29 Thread Bruce Momjian
Alvaro has just applied a modified version of this patch. --- Hannu Krosing wrote: On E, 2005-05-23 at 11:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I can't think of any other cases where it

Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

2006-03-20 Thread Bruce Momjian
PROTECTED], Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED], pgsql- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Teema: Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each Kuup?ev: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:40:53 -0400 (22:40 EEST) Just for the archives, attached

Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

2005-08-24 Thread Hannu Krosing
] Teema: Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each Kuupäev: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:40:53 -0400 (22:40 EEST) Just for the archives, attached is as far as I'd gotten with cleaning up Hannu's patch before I realized that it wasn't

Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

2005-08-24 Thread Bruce Momjian
Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kellele: Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED], Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED], pgsql- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Teema: Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock

Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

2005-08-17 Thread Tom Lane
Just for the archives, attached is as far as I'd gotten with cleaning up Hannu's patch before I realized that it wasn't doing what it needed to do. This fixes an end-of-transaction race condition (can't unset inVacuum before xact end, unless you want OldestXmin going backwards from the point of

Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

2005-08-14 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes: Is there any particular reason for not putting it in 8.1 ? I thought there was still uncertainty about the patch. Is there? Considerable uncertainty, in my mind. What we've got here is some pretty fundamental hacking on the transaction visibility

Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

2005-08-13 Thread Hannu Krosing
On R, 2005-08-12 at 15:47 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: This has been saved for the 8.2 release: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold Is there any particular reason for not putting it in 8.1 ? -- Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of

Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

2005-08-13 Thread Bruce Momjian
Hannu Krosing wrote: On R, 2005-08-12 at 15:47 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: This has been saved for the 8.2 release: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold Is there any particular reason for not putting it in 8.1 ? I thought there was still uncertainty about the patch.

Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

2005-08-12 Thread Bruce Momjian
This has been saved for the 8.2 release: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold --- Hannu Krosing wrote: On E, 2005-07-04 at 10:24 +0300, Hannu Krosing wrote: On P, 2005-07-03 at 12:19 -0400, Tom

Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

2005-07-04 Thread Hannu Krosing
On P, 2005-07-03 at 12:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok, this is a new version of the vacuum patch with the following changes following some suggestions in this thread. The more I look at this, the uglier it looks ... and I still haven't seen any

Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

2005-07-04 Thread Hannu Krosing
On E, 2005-07-04 at 10:24 +0300, Hannu Krosing wrote: On P, 2005-07-03 at 12:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok, this is a new version of the vacuum patch with the following changes following some suggestions in this thread. The more I look at this,

Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

2005-07-03 Thread Hannu Krosing
On E, 2005-05-23 at 11:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I can't think of any other cases where it could matter, as at least the work done inside vacuum_rel() itself seema non-rollbackable. VACUUM FULL's tuple-moving is definitely roll-back-able, so it might

Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

2005-07-03 Thread Tom Lane
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok, this is a new version of the vacuum patch with the following changes following some suggestions in this thread. The more I look at this, the uglier it looks ... and I still haven't seen any convincing demonstration that it *works*, ie doesn't have bad

Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

2005-05-23 Thread Hannu Krosing
On E, 2005-05-23 at 10:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm a little worried about having this set to true after a VACUUM is executed, and only reset to false when the next transaction is begun: it shouldn't affect correctness right now, but it seems like

Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

2005-05-23 Thread Hannu Krosing
On E, 2005-05-23 at 11:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I can't think of any other cases where it could matter, as at least the work done inside vacuum_rel() itself seema non-rollbackable. VACUUM FULL's tuple-moving is definitely roll-back-able, so it might