On 1/17/11 11:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Do we actually need a lock timeout either? The patch that was being
> discussed just involved failing if you couldn't get it immediately.
> I suspect that's sufficient for AV. At least, nobody's made a
> compelling argument why we need to expend a very substantially larger
> amount of work to do something different.
The argument is that a sufficiently busy table might never get
autovacuumed *at all*, whereas a small lock wait would allow autovacuum
to block incoming transactions and start work.
However, it's hard for me to imagine a real-world situation where a
table would be under repeated full-table-locks from multiple
connections. Can anyone else?
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
