Re: Autovacuum of pg_database
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Autovacuum of pg_database |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4352.1462833746@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Autovacuum of pg_database (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Autovacuum of pg_database
Re: Autovacuum of pg_database Re: Autovacuum of pg_database |
Список | pgsql-admin |
I wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> Now that I actually tried this, it turned out that this problem is not >> so simple. vacuum.c already has logic to use conditional acquire of the >> table-level lock, and if not available it skips the table: >> LOG: skipping vacuum of "pg_shdepend" --- lock not available >> so an autovacuum worker is never "stuck" behind another worker trying to >> vacuum the table. > Hmm ... but then, how do we have the observed symptom of several workers > concurrently trying to process the same shared catalog? Seems like all > but one should fall out at this point. Oh, see table_recheck_autovac: tab->at_vacoptions = VACOPT_SKIPTOAST | (dovacuum ? VACOPT_VACUUM : 0) | (doanalyze ? VACOPT_ANALYZE : 0) | (!wraparound ? VACOPT_NOWAIT : 0); ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'll bet they're all trying to do anti-wraparound vacuums. This would explain why the problem hasn't been observed often enough to have been fixed long since. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: