From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | andy <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [ADMIN] Vacuum error on database postgres |
Date: | 2006-09-14 16:01:56 |
Message-ID: | 45097CF4.7040409@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
> This behavior dates from a time when there was no good alternative.
> One possible fix today would be to make ANALYZE take
> ShareUpdateExclusive lock instead, thus ensuring there is only one
> ANALYZE at a time on a table. However I'm a bit concerned by the
> possibility that ANALYZE-inside-a-transaction could accumulate a
> whole bunch of such locks in a random order, leading at least to
> a risk of deadlocks against other ANALYZEs. (We have to hold the
> lock till commit, else we aren't fixing the problem.) Do we need a
> specialized lock type just for ANALYZE? Would sorting the target
> list of rel OIDs be enough? Perhaps it's not worth worrying about?
>
Why not an internal lock that people don't see? The behavior would the
following:
conn1: analyze foo;
conn2: analyze foo;
ERROR: analyze already running on foo
conn1: analyze foo;
conn2: analyze;
NOTICE: analyze full started, analyze running on foo, skipping foo
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-14 20:35:29 | Re: [ADMIN] Vacuum error on database postgres |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-14 15:20:30 | Re: [ADMIN] Vacuum error on database postgres |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-09-14 16:04:35 | Re: Fixed length data types issue |
Previous Message | Csaba Nagy | 2006-09-14 15:51:28 | Re: Opinion wanted on UUID/GUID datatype output formats. |