Re: AutoVacuum starvation from sinval messages

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: AutoVacuum starvation from sinval messages
Date: 2012-11-08 23:23:46
Message-ID: 21893.1352417026@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 8 November 2012 20:36, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> It does not seem outrageous to me that there would be real-world
>> conditions in which invalidations would be sent more than once a
>> minute over prolonged periods, so this total starvation seems like a
>> bug.

> Yes, its a bug, but do you really believe the above? In what cases?

It doesn't take a whole lot of DDL to provoke an sinval overrun, if
the recipient process is just sitting idle and not servicing the
messages. I think Jeff's concern is entirely valid.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Janes 2012-11-08 23:46:09 Re: Further pg_upgrade analysis for many tables
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2012-11-08 23:20:07 Re: TRUNCATE SERIALIZABLE and frozen COPY