Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Autovacuum cancellation

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Autovacuum cancellation
Date: 2007-10-26 12:59:47
Message-ID: 10623.1193403587@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committerspgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> I assume the right thing happens if multiple deadlock check signals fire for
> the same autovacuum?

Multiple signals shouldn't be a problem, but late-arriving ones could be.
It might be worth having autovac explicitly clear QueryCancelPending
after it's finished a table, so that a SIGINT sent because of activity
on one table couldn't force cancellation of vacuum on the next one.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jonah H. HarrisDate: 2007-10-26 13:01:14
Subject: Re: PANIC caused by open_sync on Linux
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-10-26 12:56:37
Subject: Re: Autovacuum cancellation

pgsql-committers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-10-26 13:30:10
Subject: pgsql: Avoid including any backend-only stuff in the zic utility
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-10-26 12:56:37
Subject: Re: Autovacuum cancellation

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-10-26 13:32:41
Subject: Re: fix ZIC dependency on postgres.h
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-10-26 12:56:37
Subject: Re: Autovacuum cancellation

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group