| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: HOT and autovacuum |
| Date: | 2008-03-04 11:20:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20080304112044.GA4755@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > I'm seeing a 8.3 database whose autovacuum-initiated vacuums are being
> > cancelled and I am not sure of the cause. I am wondering if a HOT
> > cleanup round on a page could try to acquire locks on it that would
> > conflict with autovacuum (basically anything that conflicts with a
> > vacuum lock). This would cause autovacuum to commit hara-kiri.
>
> This is nonsense, no? A buffer cleanup lock is an LWLock not a lock
> manager lock.
Yeah, I realized that after awhile. There must be something else they
are doing.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-03-04 12:54:51 | Re: "could not open relation 1663/16384/16584: No such file or directory" in a specific combination of transactions with temp tables |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-03-04 10:20:31 | Re: 8.3 / 8.2.6 restore comparison |