From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: =?utf-8?B?T25kxZllaiBTdsSbdGzDrWs=?= <osvetlik@flexibee.eu>,
        pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Autovacuum of pg_database
In-reply-to: <20160506161932.GA216183@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20160506161932.GA216183@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Fri, 06 May 2016 13:19:32 -0300"
Date: Fri, 06 May 2016 12:38:16 -0400
Message-ID: <5836.1462552696@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Actually, I realized after looking at it that the new wi_tableshared
>> field is unnecessary in my patch.  The only important part is that
>> knowledge of relisshared be available when we're looking for conflicting
>> workers, and that is entirely local in do_autovacuum().  I'd started the
>> patch by adding wi_tableshared, on the expectation that it would be
>> necessary, but it ain't ...

> OK, if I understand you correctly then that is what my patch does -- the
> "sharedrel" flag in my patch is only inside do_autovacuum.  Do you
> already have a test rig for this?

I didn't attempt to replicate the problem report, if that's what you
mean; I just tested it as far as running the regression tests.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin