X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C659DC81D for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:50:51 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 69263-05 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:50:55 -0400 (AST) Received: from svr4.postgresql.org (svr4.postgresql.org [66.98.251.159]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6EEA9DC984 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:50:48 -0400 (AST) Received: from calypso.bi.lt (calypso.bi.lt [213.226.153.10]) by svr4.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85BA65AF184 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:50:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from calypso.bi.lt (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calypso.bi.lt (Postfix) with ESMTP id A61714809D8; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:50:49 +0200 (EET) Received: from B027543 (inet.bee.lt [213.226.131.30]) by calypso.bi.lt (Postfix) with SMTP id 8C365480258; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:50:49 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <034701c61c46$f427df20$f20214ac@bite.lt> From: "Mindaugas" To: "Tom Lane" Cc: References: <20060117145649.GE21092@phlogiston.dyndns.org> <608xteerfh.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com> <20060117173046.GA4296@surnet.cl> <604q42elzl.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com> <20592.1137526372@sss.pgh.pa.us> Subject: Re: Autovacuum / full vacuum Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:50:49 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1257" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200601/298 X-Sequence-Number: 16776 > >> Even a database-wide vacuum does not take locks on more than one table. > >> The table locks are acquired and released one by one, as the operation > >> proceeds. > > > Has that changed recently? I have always seen "vacuumdb" or SQL > > "VACUUM" (without table specifications) running as one long > > transaction which doesn't release the locks that it is granted until > > the end of the transaction. > > You sure? It's not supposed to, and watching a database-wide vacuum > with "select * from pg_locks" doesn't look to me like it ever has locks > on more than one table (plus the table's indexes and toast table). Are there some plans to remove vacuum altogether? Mindaugas