alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org (Alvaro Herrera) writes:
> Chris Browne wrote:
>> ajs@crankycanuck.ca (Andrew Sullivan) writes:
>> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:18:59AM +0100, Michael Riess wrote:
>> >> hi,
>> >>
>> >> I'm curious as to why autovacuum is not designed to do full vacuum. I
>> >
>> > Because nothing that runs automatically should ever take an exclusive
>> > lock on the entire database, which is what VACUUM FULL does.
>>
>> That's a bit more than what autovacuum would probably do...
>> autovacuum does things table by table, so that what would be locked
>> should just be one table.
>
> Even a database-wide vacuum does not take locks on more than one table.
> The table locks are acquired and released one by one, as the operation
> proceeds. And as you know, autovacuum (both 8.1's and contrib) does
> issue database-wide vacuums, if it finds a database close to an xid
> wraparound.
Has that changed recently? I have always seen "vacuumdb" or SQL
"VACUUM" (without table specifications) running as one long
transaction which doesn't release the locks that it is granted until
the end of the transaction.
--
"cbbrowne","@","acm.org"
http://cbbrowne.com/info/spiritual.html
"My nostalgia for Icon makes me forget about any of the bad things. I
don't have much nostalgia for Perl, so its faults I remember."
-- Scott Gilbert comp.lang.python