Re: Improve behavior of concurrent ANALYZE/VACUUM - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Improve behavior of concurrent ANALYZE/VACUUM
Date
Msg-id 20180822053637.GC4333@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Improve behavior of concurrent ANALYZE/VACUUM  ("Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>)
Responses Re: Improve behavior of concurrent ANALYZE/VACUUM
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 02:17:44AM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> I think this is doable by locking the table in SHARE mode.  That won't
> conflict with the AccessShareLock that expand_vacuum_rel() obtains,
> but it will conflict with the ShareUpdateExclusiveLock or
> AccessExclusiveLock that vacuum_rel() takes.

Good point.  Still is that really worth adding?  This implies a test
which has at least two roles, one switching the ownership to the other
and do so back-and-forth.  At least that should be on a different
isolation spec file to not complicate the first one.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Yamaji, Ryo"
Date:
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: plan_cache_mode and postgresql.conf.sample