Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full)
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTinvJgdKC=-ScG-DTELSQu4etYVwr=+NGkvyhKKo@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full)
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> I think we've had a number of pieces of evidence that suggest that >> extending 8kB at a time is too costly, but I agree with Greg that the >> idea of extending an arbitrarily large table by 10% at a time is >> pretty frightening - that could involve allocating a gigantic amount >> of space on a big table. =A0I would be inclined to do something like >> extend by 10% of table or 1MB, whichever is smaller. > > Sure, something like that sounds sane, though the precise numbers > need some validation. Yeah. >> ... And a 1MB extension is probably also small enough >> that we can do it in the foreground without too much of a hiccup. > > Less than convinced about this. Well, I guess we can always try it and see. --=20 Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: