From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Autovacuum / full vacuum
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:30:47 -0300
Message-ID: <20060117173046.GA4296@surnet.cl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <608xteerfh.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com>
References: <dqigaf$1b98$1@news.hub.org>
<20060117145649.GE21092@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
<608xteerfh.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com>
Chris Browne wrote:
> ajs@crankycanuck.ca (Andrew Sullivan) writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:18:59AM +0100, Michael Riess wrote:
> >> hi,
> >>
> >> I'm curious as to why autovacuum is not designed to do full vacuum. I
> >
> > Because nothing that runs automatically should ever take an exclusive
> > lock on the entire database, which is what VACUUM FULL does.
>
> That's a bit more than what autovacuum would probably do...
> autovacuum does things table by table, so that what would be locked
> should just be one table.
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. And as you know, autovacuum (both 8.1's and contrib) does
issue database-wide vacuums, if it finds a database close to an xid
wraparound.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.advogato.org/person/alvherre
"Las mujeres son como hondas: mientras más resistencia tienen,
más lejos puedes llegar con ellas" (Jonas Nightingale, Leap of Faith)
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, cbbrowne@acm.org
Subject: Re: Autovacuum / full vacuum
In-Reply-To: <20060117173046.GA4296@surnet.cl>
* 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