Re: (auto)vacuum truncate exclusive lock

Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com>

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2013-04-18T15:44:45Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 4/12/2013 2:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>
>> Are you saying you intend to revert that whole concept?  That'd be
>> okay with me, I think.  Otherwise we need some thought about how to
>> inform the stats collector what's really happening.
>
> Maybe what we need is to consider table truncation as a separate
> activity from vacuuming.  Then autovacuum could invoke it without having
> to do a full-blown vacuum.  For this to work, I guess we would like to
> separately store the status of the back-scan in pgstat somehow (I think
> a boolean flag suffices: "were we able to truncate all pages that
> appeared to be empty?")

Should have read the entire thread before responding :)


Jan

-- 
Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither
liberty nor security. -- Benjamin Franklin