From: Denise Bossarte <mypostgreSQL@hotmail.com>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: VACUUM and locking
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:36:07 -0400
Message-ID: <apbkr3$a8f$1@news.hub.org> (raw)
I am trying to automate VACUUMing several databases and am confused on how
client connections to the database might affect the VACUUM.
I have looked at the documentation on locking and VACUUM and have found
conflicting reports.
The 7.2.1 Documentation
http://www.postgresql.org/idocs/index.php?locking-tables.html states that
VACUUM (without FULL) acquires a ShareUpdateExclusiveLock and VACUUM with
FULL acquires an AcessExclusiveLock.
However, the 7.2.1 Appendix A. Release Notes state "Vacuuming no longer
locks tables, thus allowing normal user access during the vacuum. A new
VACUUM FULL command does old-style vacuum by locking the table and shrinking
the on-disk copy of the table." Additionally, the "Transaction Processing
in Postgres" pdf http://developer.postgresql.org/pdf/transactions.pdf only
shows AcessExclusiveLock acquird by VACUUM (full? - not stated) (p. 18).
So which, if any, locks does VACUUM acquire? How do client connections to
the database affect the VACUUM? What is the best way to automate VACUUM?
Thanks for your help,
Denise
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: mypostgreSQL@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: VACUUM and locking
In-Reply-To: <apbkr3$a8f$1@news.hub.org>
* 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