Re: Maintenance form exection thread
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Maintenance form exection thread |
Дата | |
Msg-id | m2i9837222c1004100214za47e62e5v5bc390e23c7200f7@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Maintenance form exection thread (Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info>) |
Ответы |
Re: Maintenance form exection thread
|
Список | pgadmin-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 10:58, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: > Le 06/04/2010 22:33, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit : >> Le 06/04/2010 21:48, Magnus Hagander a écrit : >>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 21:01, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >>>>> Hi! >>>>> >>>>> Am I reading things right that we actually execute things from the >>>>> maintenance dialog (like VACUUM) on a separate thread, to keep the UI >>>>> responsive? Yet, it keeps hanging when we do that. My guess is that >>>>> we're "using up" the connection we have, and as soon as somebody else >>>>> needs access to the connection to do things like refresh tree >>>>> information, we hang and wait. Or am I reading this wrong? >>>>> >>>>> If we are, should we perhaps consider firing off these jobs on a >>>>> separate connection? >>>> >>>> Yeah, that would seem like a sensible idea. At first thought I guessed >>>> it was an issue like this >>>> http://svn.pgadmin.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi?rev=6458&view=rev, but on >>>> reflection I think your much more simple explanation is the likely >>>> cause. >>> >>> I don' t have time to look into it right onw. Do you, or should I just >>> add a ticket for it for "eventual fixing"? >>> >> >> Add the ticket, I will take care of it this week if no one does. >> > > Here is a patch for trunk. > > Oh, and one question. You created a *bug* ticket. Do you mean you want > this applied on the 1.10 branch? I prefer to ask as I don't really think > this is a bug, it's more of an enhancement to me. I do consider it a bug. If it's backpatchable or not depends on the patch complexity, imo. Given that the solution is creating a separate connection for it, I think it should *not* be applied to 1.10, because it's a large problem. If someone had corrected my diagnosis and found a lower-impact way, then it could've been. The patch looks surprisingly simple :-) But I can't see why it wouldn't be correct - looks good to me. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgadmin-hackers по дате отправления: