the lock based on waiting
queries on the hot standby.
Looking forward to your thoughts.
Best regards,
Ram
ᐧ
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 20:50, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ramanathan writes:
> > I propose modifying the use of an EXCLUSIVE lock during the backward scan
> > phase, then upgrad
Hi,
The vacuum truncate operation consists of two phases: a backward scan of
the heap [1] followed by the work to perform the actual truncation [2]. In
the current implementation, both phases maintain an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock
on the relation for the duration of the processing. The ACCESS EXCLUSIVE
nsistent error message in both
scenarios but it offers no real functional gains.
1. Is there a different reason the two queries produce a different error?
2. Is there a better way to think about the "command cannot affect row a
second time"? Appreciate any guidance. Thanks.
Warm regards,
Karthi
