On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:34 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:25 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:48 PM James Coleman wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:21 AM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Let me know what you think of att
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:25 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:48 PM James Coleman wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:21 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Let me know what you think of attached? I think we can back-patch
> > > this patch. What do you think? Does
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:48 PM James Coleman wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:21 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >
> > Let me know what you think of attached? I think we can back-patch
> > this patch. What do you think? Does anyone else have an opinion on
> > this patch especially if we see a
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:21 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 11:59 PM James Coleman wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 10:51 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Updated patch attached. I changed the wording to be about conflicting
> > locks rather than a single lock ty
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 11:59 PM James Coleman wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 10:51 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
>
> Updated patch attached. I changed the wording to be about conflicting
> locks rather than a single lock type, added a link to the conflicting
> locks table, and fixed a few sgml s
On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 10:51 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 1:45 AM James Coleman wrote:
> >
> > We've discussed this internally many times, but today finally decided
> > to write up a doc patch.
> >
>
> Thanks, I think something on the lines of what you have written can
> hel
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 1:45 AM James Coleman wrote:
>
> We've discussed this internally many times, but today finally decided
> to write up a doc patch.
>
Thanks, I think something on the lines of what you have written can
help some users to understand the behavior in this area and there
doesn't
We've discussed this internally many times, but today finally decided
to write up a doc patch.
Autovacuum holds a SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE lock, but other processes
can cancel autovacuum if blocked by that lock unless the autovacuum is
to prevent wraparound.This can result in very surprising behavio
