On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 14:33 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane escribió: > > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Gregory Stark escribi: > > >> A crazy idea I just had -- what if you roll this into the deadlock > > >> check? So > > >> after waiting on the lock for 1s it wakes up, finds that the holder it's > > >> waiting on is an autovacuum process and cancels it instead of finding no > > >> deadlock. > > > > > Another crazy idea is to have some sort of "blacklist" of tables in > > > shared memory. Any autovacuum process would skip those tables. > > > > The deadlock check idea sounds promising to me, not least because it > > avoids adding any cycles in performance-critical paths. I'm not certain > > how easy it'd be to fold the idea into the checker though. That > > logic is pretty complicated :-( and I'm not sure that it makes a > > consistent effort to visit every possible blocker. > > The idea sounds interesting, but I am not at all sure how to fit it in > the deadlock code. > > I am totally uninclined to mess with this stuff.
I'll look at it, if Greg isn't already doing so. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
