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