Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up?
Date: 2014-01-23 20:49:06
Message-ID: 10006.1390510146@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I have run into yet again another situation where there was an
> assumption that autovacuum was keeping up and it wasn't. It was caused
> by autovacuum quitting because another process requested a lock.

> In turn we received a ton of bloat on pg_attribute which caused all
> kinds of other issues (as can be expected).

> The more I run into it, the more it seems like autovacuum should behave
> like vacuum, in that it gets precedence when it is running. First come,
> first serve as they say.

1. Back when it worked like that, things were worse.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2014-01-23 20:53:35 Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-01-23 20:37:05 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Compress GIN posting lists, for smaller index size.