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

Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher
Date: 2007-10-04 17:30:55
Message-ID: 24884.1191519055@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Gregory Stark escribi:
>> A crazy idea I just had -- what if you roll this into the deadlock check? So
>> after waiting on the lock for 1s it wakes up, finds that the holder it's
>> waiting on is an autovacuum process and cancels it instead of finding no
>> deadlock.

> Another crazy idea is to have some sort of "blacklist" of tables in
> shared memory.  Any autovacuum process would skip those tables.

The deadlock check idea sounds promising to me, not least because it
avoids adding any cycles in performance-critical paths.  I'm not certain
how easy it'd be to fold the idea into the checker though.  That
logic is pretty complicated :-( and I'm not sure that it makes a
consistent effort to visit every possible blocker.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-10-04 17:45:35
Subject: Re: Not *quite* there on ecpg fixes
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-10-04 16:55:57
Subject: Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher

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