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

Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher
Date: 2007-10-03 16:42:30
Message-ID: 20071003164230.GJ10624@alvh.no-ip.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera escribió:

> I think this is doable.  We would need to add a phase 0 to ALTER TABLE
> processing, which grabs a less strong (than AccessExclusive) lock on the
> table, then goes over the list of commands and determine if at least one
> of them requires exclusive access to the table (I think the criteria
> here is whether table rewriting is needed, in which case AccessExclusive
> is enough).  If none of them does, then we press on.

As expected, this idea didn't fly very far.  The first problem I find
is that DefineIndex grabs a new lock by itself; if it's not a concurrent
build, it grabs ShareLock which immediately locks out ANALYZE.

It is worse than it sounds at first, because as soon as we are starting
ALTER TABLE with a less strong lock, then this ShareLock is deemed a
lock upgrade, with the ensuing dangers for deadlocks.

I'm starting to find this area of lock strength reduction a minefield,
one on which it is very easy to step on a mine.

So I'm back to considering a solution along the lines of cancelling a
running autovacuum job.  But I think I would do it only for ANALYZE, not
vacuum.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera       Valdivia, Chile   ICBM: S 39º 49' 18.1", W 73º 13' 56.4"
"La espina, desde que nace, ya pincha" (Proverbio africano)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-10-03 17:18:35
Subject: Re: ECPG regression tests
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-10-03 14:02:28
Subject: Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher

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