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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each
Дата
Msg-id 3432.1154291049@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Список pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> 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 last version of the patch than I was
expecting ...

The patch as committed looks fine to me, modulo a couple of comments
which I've fixed.

One thing that slightly troubles me is that GetOldestXmin will now
ignore a lazy vacuum's *own* xmin, which is not like the previous
behavior.  Offhand I can't see a reason why this is not safe, but
maybe it'd have been better for it to do

+         if (ignoreVacuum && proc->inVacuum && proc != MyProc)
+             continue;

Thoughts?

            regards, tom lane

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tzahi Fadida
Дата:
Сообщение: 64 bits bitwise operations support
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: problem with volatile functions in subselects ?