Re: A concurrent VACUUM FULL?
От | Erik Nordström |
---|---|
Тема | Re: A concurrent VACUUM FULL? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CACAa4VK992287uP61dUA+8SE69g3Tf+7ad5NkvWoW6bG9AEKkg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: A concurrent VACUUM FULL? (Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: A concurrent VACUUM FULL?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 1:46 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote:
On 2025-Jun-30, Erik Nordström wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 12:03 PM Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> wrote:
> > Patch [1] is in the queue that allows both reads and writes. (An exclusive
> > lock is acquired here for the swaps, but that should be held for very short
> > time.)
>
> That sounds great. Do you know if there's anything I can do to help?
It would be very valuable if you can review the code, test it under the
weirdest conditions you can imagine or just under normal conditions,
proof-read the documentation, try to see if anything is missing that
should be there, and so on. Everything that you would expect from a new
feature released as part of the next Postgres release. Any
problems/crashes/ abnormalities that you report before the patch is
included in Postgres, is one less issue that we'll have to deal with
after the release.
I'll do my best to test the feature. One question I have, though, is why not start with supporting concurrent reads but not writes? That would already be a win and make the patch simpler.
Best,
- Erik
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"El miedo atento y previsor es la madre de la seguridad" (E. Burke)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: