Horton

Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum Improvements

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>

View thread
From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>
To: Russell Smith <mr-russ@pws.com.au>
Cc: Darcy Buskermolen <darcyb@commandprompt.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan@enterprisedb.com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2007-01-21T11:39:45Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Russell Smith wrote:
> Strange idea that I haven't researched,  Given Vacuum can't be run in a 
> transaction, it is possible at a certain point to quit the current 
> transaction and start another one.  There has been much chat and now a 
> TODO item about allowing multiple vacuums to not starve small tables.  
> But if a big table has a long running vacuum the vacuum of the small 
> table won't be effective anyway will it?  If vacuum of a big table was 
> done in multiple transactions you could reduce the effect of long 
> running vacuum.  I'm not sure how this effects the rest of the system 
> thought.

That was fixed by Hannu Krosing's patch in 8.2 that made vacuum to 
ignore other vacuums in the oldest xmin calculation.

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com