> This behavior dates from a time when there was no good alternative.
> One possible fix today would be to make ANALYZE take
> ShareUpdateExclusive lock instead, thus ensuring there is only one
> ANALYZE at a time on a table. However I'm a bit concerned by the
> possibility that ANALYZE-inside-a-transaction could accumulate a
> whole bunch of such locks in a random order, leading at least to
> a risk of deadlocks against other ANALYZEs. (We have to hold the
> lock till commit, else we aren't fixing the problem.) Do we need a
> specialized lock type just for ANALYZE? Would sorting the target
> list of rel OIDs be enough? Perhaps it's not worth worrying about?
>
Why not an internal lock that people don't see? The behavior would the
following:
conn1: analyze foo;
conn2: analyze foo;
ERROR: analyze already running on foo
conn1: analyze foo;
conn2: analyze;
NOTICE: analyze full started, analyze running on foo, skipping foo
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL
solutionssince 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
