On 6 September 2016 at 11:30, Simon Riggs wrote:
> In vacuumlazy.c, VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL is described as
> being in ms on line 85, yet it is used on line 1759 in a call to
> pg_usleep, so is treated as microseconds rather than milliseconds.
>
> As a result, the timeout during lazy_tr
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I'm also wondering why we don't use lock_timeout when the user sets it?
> Not a bug, but patch attached anyway.
> vacuum_truncate_use_lock_timeout.v1.patch
This part seems fairly random. I don't think it makes sense to assume
that the timeout
In vacuumlazy.c, VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL is described as
being in ms on line 85, yet it is used on line 1759 in a call to
pg_usleep, so is treated as microseconds rather than milliseconds.
As a result, the timeout during lazy_truncate_heap() is actually only
5ms long, not 5s long.
So t
