Re: vacuum taking an unusually long time
| От | Mason Hale |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: vacuum taking an unusually long time |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 8bca3aa10807161008k1934c9cbu15f29cf2828733e4@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: vacuum taking an unusually long time (Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: vacuum taking an unusually long time
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
No, it's just sleeping. For 10 milliseconds or so.On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Mason Hale <masonhale@gmail.com> wrote:
Here's some of the strace output:
select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, {0, 10000}) = 0 (Timeout)
If I read the 'select(2)' man page correctly, it appears this process is waiting indefinitely for a NULL file descriptor.
That looks pretty stuck to me.
Ah, thanks.
It looks like "read a page, sleep for 80 milliseconds, repeat".Should I kill this autovacuum process via pg_cancel_backend?
Or is there a better way to "unstick" it?
Any ideas what may have caused it to get into this condition?
I'd look at your settings for autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit / autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay, and maybe the contents of pg_autovacuum.
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit = -1
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay = 20ms
'select * from pg_autovacuum;' returns zero rows
I killed the one autovacuum process already that I thought was hung (via pg_cancel_backend).
I can see one other autovacuum process running. The other vacuum process was started manually.
Should I be concerned that pg_autovacuum is empty when I have an autovacuum process running?
Mason
Cheers,
Steve
--Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: