| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| 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 23:50:58 |
| Message-ID: | 17022.1158277858@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> Couldn't you just sort by the table names, and ANALYZE the tables in
> that order? Would that effectively prevent the deadlocks?
That'd work too, I think (I suggested the variant of ordering by OID,
which is simpler and more reliable). Not sure if it's really worth the
trouble though --- how many people do you think are doing concurrent
whole-database ANALYZEs inside transaction blocks?
As-is the code will do the analyzes in pg_class physical row order,
which is almost good enough --- only if someone did a schema change that
forced a pg_class row update between the starts of the two ANALYZE runs
would it possibly fail. So the use-case for a fix is really kinda narrow.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2006-09-15 00:49:24 | Re: real and effective user ids must match |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2006-09-14 23:40:17 | Re: [ADMIN] Vacuum error on database postgres |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-09-15 00:14:35 | Re: Draft release notes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-14 23:45:24 | Re: Lock partitions |