| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up? |
| Date: | 2014-01-23 20:49:06 |
| Message-ID: | 10006.1390510146@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I have run into yet again another situation where there was an
> assumption that autovacuum was keeping up and it wasn't. It was caused
> by autovacuum quitting because another process requested a lock.
> In turn we received a ton of bloat on pg_attribute which caused all
> kinds of other issues (as can be expected).
> The more I run into it, the more it seems like autovacuum should behave
> like vacuum, in that it gets precedence when it is running. First come,
> first serve as they say.
1. Back when it worked like that, things were worse.
2. What have you got that is requesting exclusive lock on pg_attribute?
That seems like a pretty unfriendly behavior in itself.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-01-23 20:53:35 | Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-01-23 20:37:05 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Compress GIN posting lists, for smaller index size. |