From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Royce Ausburn <royce(dot)ml(at)inomial(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Ineffective autovacuum |
Date: | 2011-09-27 04:21:22 |
Message-ID: | 14103.1317097282@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Royce Ausburn <royce(dot)ml(at)inomial(dot)com> writes:
> I have a problem with autovacuum apparently not doing the job I need it to do.
Hm, I wonder whether you're getting bit by bug #5759, which was fixed
after 8.3.12.
> I have a table named datasession that is frequently inserted, updated and deleted from. Typically the table will have a few thousand rows in it. Each row typically survives a few days and is updated every 5 - 10 mins. The application receives unreliable, potentially duplicate data from its source, so this table is heavily used for synchronising application threads as well. A typical access pattern is:
> - tx begin
> - SELECT FOR UPDATE on a single row
> - Do some application processing (1 - 100 ms)
> - Possibly UPDATE the row
> - tx commit
Transactions of that form would not interfere with autovacuum. You'd
need something that wants exclusive lock, like a schema change.
> I've read some recent threads and found a discussion (below) on auto vacuum that mentions auto vacuum will be cancelled when a client requests a lock that auto vacuum is using My questions:
> 1) Does it look like I'm affected by the same problem as in the below discussion?
Not unless you're seeing a lot of "canceling autovacuum task" messages
in the postmaster log.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ben Chobot | 2011-09-27 04:54:10 | Re: postgres constraint triggers |
Previous Message | Royce Ausburn | 2011-09-27 03:45:33 | Ineffective autovacuum |