Re: Status of autovacuum and the sporadic stats failures ?
От | Stefan Kaltenbrunner |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Status of autovacuum and the sporadic stats failures ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 45C8EA81.6090102@kaltenbrunner.cc обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Status of autovacuum and the sporadic stats failures ? (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: >> I'm still getting random failures from some of my buildfarm members >> which is starting to get a bit irritating and annoying :-( >> >> some recent failures: >> >> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=zebra&dt=2007-02-06%2015:25:04 >> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=clownfish&dt=2007-02-06%2000:03:04 >> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=clownfish&dt=2007-02-04%2003:03:09 >> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=impala&dt=2007-02-02%2003:03:02 >> >> >> any ideas ? > > Since they are sporadic, my guess is that it's due to autovacuum not > letting pgstat catch up. I'd try either setting > autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay to a low value, or extending the sleep > period in the stats test, to give more time for pgstat to catch up with > those messages. hmm now that I look closer - all those members above are actually VMs of some sort and the host is rather busy at times (multiple VMs competing for CPU and IO) so that might be a factor here. > > Setting the cost_delay sounds a reasonable thing to do anyway, and in > fact I already proposed it and nobody objected (AFAIR). Now we only > have to agree on a reasonable value. note sure on a reasonable value but we still have time to test different values if needed for 8.3 - but I think we should really try to get rid of those sporadic failures because they might lead to getting other issues going unnoticed. Stefan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: