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: