Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up?

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>
Cc: Joshua Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up?
Date: 2014-01-23 21:14:44
Message-ID: CAFj8pRC9=tTxGjEX9WvQ4JjU9Ep-asrmAtEyCV5Hmu3+QnWAew@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dne 23.1.2014 22:04 "Mark Kirkwood" <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>
napsal(a):
>
> On 24/01/14 09:49, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> 2. What have you got that is requesting exclusive lock on pg_attribute?
That seems like a pretty unfriendly behavior in itself. regards, tom lane
>
>
> I've seen this sort of problem where every db session was busily creating
temporary tables. I never got to the find *why* they needed to make so
many, but it seemed like a bad idea.
>

Our customer had same problem with temp tables by intensively plpgsql
functions. For higher load a temp tables are performance and stability
killer. Vacuum of pg attrib has very ugly impacts :(

Regars

Pavel

After redesign - without tmp tables - his applications works well.

We needs a global temp tables

> Regards
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-01-23 21:15:50 Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up?
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2014-01-23 21:14:18 Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up?