Re: allowing VACUUM to be cancelled for conflicting locks - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: allowing VACUUM to be cancelled for conflicting locks
Date
Msg-id 20140428180704.GF14464@awork2.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: allowing VACUUM to be cancelled for conflicting locks  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2014-04-28 14:05:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > I don't think this is about the truncation thing, but about the
> > deadlock.c/proc.c logic around DS_BLOCKED_BY_AUTOVACUUM. I.e. that a
> > autovacuum is cancelled if user code tries to acquire a conflicting
> > lock.
> 
> It's a bit of a stretch to claim that a manual VACUUM should be cancelled
> by a manual DDL action elsewhere.  Who's to say which of those things
> should have priority?

Yea, I am not that sure about the feature either. It sure would need to
be optional. Often enough VACUUMs are scripted to run during off hours,
for those it possibly makes sense.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: allowing VACUUM to be cancelled for conflicting locks
Next
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: allowing VACUUM to be cancelled for conflicting locks