Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each
- From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
- Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: [PATCHES] PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each
- Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:24:09 -0400
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)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
- Prev by Date: 64 bits bitwise operations support
- Next by Date: Re: problem with volatile functions in subselects ?
- Previous by thread: 64 bits bitwise operations support
- Next by thread: Let psql process files with > 4,294,967,295 lines
- Indexes: