Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>, Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2007-10-02T15:17:47Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: > Tom Lane escribi: >> It might be possible to solve this if we reduce the strength of the lock >> used for ALTER TABLE. We'd have to go through all the commands >> potentially issued by a pg_dump script and see if they could all be made >> to run concurrently with autovac, which is a bit nervous-making but >> might be feasible; and I'm afraid tablecmds.c would need some >> restructuring to not use the same lock type for every variant of ALTER. >> But it seems like a path worth investigating. > Right. Are you going to work on it, or do you want me to propose a > patch? If you have time to work on it, please do. But it seems like you first need to do some investigation --- the idea may not work at all. In any case, this would still only fix things for pg_restore, and I remain concerned that people will gripe about autovacuum blocking locks. The idea of kicking autovac off tables remains probably more interesting in the long run. regards, tom lane