Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> Alvaro has just applied a modified version of this patch.

Hannu, I'm curious:

> Hannu Krosing wrote:

> > Ok, this is a new version of the vacuum patch with the following changes
> > following some suggestions in this thread.
> > 
> > * changed the patch to affect only lazy vacuum 
> > * moved inVacuum handling to use PG_TRY
> > * moved vac_update_relstats() out of lazy_vacuum_rel into a separate
> >   transaction. The code to do this may not be the prettiest, maybe it
> >   should use a separate struct.

What was idea behind moving vac_update_relstats to a separate
transaction?  I'm wondering if it's still needed, if it further enhances
the system somehow, or your patch did something differently than what
was applied.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support