On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 17:33 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Simon Riggs escribió:
> > Seems like we don't need to mess with the deadlock checker itself.
> > We can rely on the process at the head of the lock wait queue to sort
> > this out for us. So all we need do is look at the isAutovacuum flag on
> > the process that is holding the lock we're waiting on. If it isn't an
> > autoANALYZE we can carry on with the main deadlock check. We just need a
> > new kind of deadlock state to handle this, then let ProcSleep send
> > SIGINT to the autoANALYZE and then go back to sleep, waiting to be
> > reawoken when the auotANALYZE aborts.
> Ok, I think this makes sense.
> I can offer the following patch -- it makes it possible to determine
> whether an autovacuum process is doing analyze or not, by comparing the
> PGPROC of the running WorkerInfo list (the list has at most
> max_autovacuum_workers entries, so this is better than trolling
Looks OK to me, thanks for noticing I glossed over the bit about how to
tell whether it was an auto-ANALYZE.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-10-05 14:52:50|
|Subject: Re: Polymorphic arguments and composite types |
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2007-10-05 12:25:01|
|Subject: Polymorphic arguments and composite types|