Russell Smith wrote:
> Strange idea that I haven't researched, Given Vacuum can't be run in a
> transaction, it is possible at a certain point to quit the current
> transaction and start another one. There has been much chat and now a
> TODO item about allowing multiple vacuums to not starve small tables.
> But if a big table has a long running vacuum the vacuum of the small
> table won't be effective anyway will it? If vacuum of a big table was
> done in multiple transactions you could reduce the effect of long
> running vacuum. I'm not sure how this effects the rest of the system
> thought.
That was fixed by Hannu Krosing's patch in 8.2 that made vacuum to
ignore other vacuums in the oldest xmin calculation.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
