From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: Improve behavior of concurrent ANALYZE/VACUUM
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 14:36:37 +0900
Message-ID: <20180822053637.GC4333@paquier.xyz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87D61EEA-A050-4092-88F1-A0A9C9F5284A@amazon.com>
References: <20180812222142.GA6097@paquier.xyz>
<20180817064223.GH1693@paquier.xyz>
<720DF5E4-053F-46C7-B11F-550EF2C39F6D@amazon.com>
<20180821012815.GB2897@paquier.xyz>
<CAA861D8-68C1-4A2D-84E9-E2EE6B7B6A72@amazon.com>
<20180822004335.GA4333@paquier.xyz>
<87D61EEA-A050-4092-88F1-A0A9C9F5284A@amazon.com>
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 02:17:44AM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> I think this is doable by locking the table in SHARE mode. That won't
> conflict with the AccessShareLock that expand_vacuum_rel() obtains,
> but it will conflict with the ShareUpdateExclusiveLock or
> AccessExclusiveLock that vacuum_rel() takes.
Good point. Still is that really worth adding? This implies a test
which has at least two roles, one switching the ownership to the other
and do so back-and-forth. At least that should be on a different
isolation spec file to not complicate the first one.
--
Michael
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 832B) download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: michael@paquier.xyz, bossartn@amazon.com, horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Subject: Re: Improve behavior of concurrent ANALYZE/VACUUM
In-Reply-To: <20180822053637.GC4333@paquier.xyz>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox