Re: allowing VACUUM to be cancelled for conflicting locks

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jeff Janes
Тема Re: allowing VACUUM to be cancelled for conflicting locks
Дата
Msg-id CAMkU=1yCWsf11PWfo5sBjnHMgaS6Q_s-++Zh6F08GCftvCH-0w@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: allowing VACUUM to be cancelled for conflicting locks  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I don't think this is about the truncation thing, but about the
> deadlock.c/proc.c logic around DS_BLOCKED_BY_AUTOVACUUM. I.e. that a
> autovacuum is cancelled if user code tries to acquire a conflicting
> lock.

It's a bit of a stretch to claim that a manual VACUUM should be cancelled
by a manual DDL action elsewhere.  Who's to say which of those things
should have priority?

The proposal was to add either a GUC, or a syntax to the vacuum command, so it would be either DBA or the invoker of the vacuum which is the one to say.  Either one does seem a reasonable place to have such a say, although perhaps not worth the effort to implement.

 
Cheers,

Jeff

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: allowing VACUUM to be cancelled for conflicting locks
Следующее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Clock sweep not caching enough B-Tree leaf pages?