"Alvaro Herrera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Idle thought here: did anything get done with the idea of decoupling
>> main-table vacuum decisions from toast-table vacuum decisions? vacuum.c
>> comments
>>
>> * Get a session-level lock too. This will protect our access
Tom Lane wrote:
> Idle thought here: did anything get done with the idea of decoupling
> main-table vacuum decisions from toast-table vacuum decisions? vacuum.c
> comments
>
> * Get a session-level lock too. This will protect our access to the
> * relation across multiple transactions,
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In any case, at that point we are mostly done with the expensive steps
> of vacuuming, so the transaction finishes not long after this. I don't
> think this issue is worth inventing a new invalidation mechanism.
Yeah, I agree --- there are only a few c
Tom Lane wrote:
> There might be another way to manage this, but we're not inventing
> a new invalidation mechanism for 8.3. This patch will have to be
> reverted for the time being :-(
Thanks. Seems it was a good judgement call to apply it only to HEAD,
after all.
In any case, at that point w
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But given Tom's comments this commit stands out too:
> From: "Alvaro Herrera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Log Message:
> ---
> Release the exclusive lock on the table early after truncating it in lazy
> vacuum, instead of waiting till commit.
I had th
Looking back, by far the largest change in the period Sep 1 - Sep 11 was the
lazy xid calculation and read-only transactions. That seems like the most
likely culprit.
But given Tom's comments this commit stands out too:
--- Begin Message ---
Log Message:
---
Release the exclusive lock
Gregory Stark wrote:
"Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
pgbfprod=# select sysname, stage, snapshot from build_status where log ~
$$read only \d+ of \d+ bytes$$;
sysname |stage | snapshot
---+--+--
"Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> pgbfprod=# select sysname, stage, snapshot from build_status where log ~
>> $$read only \d+ of \d+ bytes$$;
>> sysname |stage | snapshot
>> ---+--+-
>> zebra
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> pgbfprod=# select sysname, stage, snapshot from build_status where log ~
> $$read only \d+ of \d+ bytes$$;
> sysname |stage | snapshot
> ---+--+-
> zebra | InstallCheck | 2007-09-11 1
Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> ! ERROR: could not read block 2 of relation 1663/16384/2606: read only 0
>>> of 8192 bytes
>>
>> Is that repeatable? What sort of filesystem are you testing on?
>> (soft-mo
10 matches
Mail list logo
