Re: lazy vacuum and AccessExclusiveLock - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: lazy vacuum and AccessExclusiveLock
Date
Msg-id 6675.1253915608@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: lazy vacuum and AccessExclusiveLock  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: lazy vacuum and AccessExclusiveLock  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-general
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> An alternative solution would be to lower the vacuum delay settings before
> starting the truncating phase, but this doesn't work very well in autovacuum
> due to the autobalancing code (which can cause other processes to change our
> cost delay settings).  This case could be considered in the balancing code, but
> it is simpler this way.

I don't think autovacuum has a problem --- if someone requests a
conflicting lock, autovac will get kicked off, no?  The OP's problem
comes from doing a manual vacuum.  Perhaps "don't do that" is a good
enough answer.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Carlos Henrique Reimer
Date:
Subject: Low values for cached size
Next
From: Rob Marjot
Date:
Subject: Re: stored procedure: RETURNS record