From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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>, 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: | 2007-10-12 11:00:54 |
Message-ID: | 1192186854.4233.508.camel@ebony.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 11:44 +0200, Michael Paesold wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 01:24 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Yes, I think it is easy to mark the "is for xid wraparound" bit in the
> >> WorkerInfo struct and have the cancel work only if it's off.
> >>
> >> However, what I think should happen is that the signal handler for
> >> SIGINT in a worker for xid wraparound should not cancel the current
> >> vacuum. Instead turn it into a no-op, if possible. That way we also
> >> disallow a user from cancelling vacuums for xid wraparound. I think he
> >> can do that with pg_cancel_backend, and it could be dangerous.
> >
> > I think that is dangerous too because the user may have specifically
> > turned AV off. That anti-wraparound vacuum might spring up right in a
> > busy period and start working its way through many tables, all of which
> > cause massive writes to occur. That's about as close to us causing an
> > outage as I ever want to see. We need a way through that to allow the
> > user to realise his predicament and find a good time to VACUUM. I never
> > want to say to anybody "nothing you can do, just sit and watch, your
> > production system will be working again in no time. Restart? no that
> > won't work either."
>
> You are probably right that VACUUM going full-steam is a bad idea in most
> situations. Except for anti-wraparound vacuum, cancellation seems the most
> reasonable thing to do. Because autovacuum will usually pickup the table in
> time again.
Yeh, if we do have to do the second emergency anti-wraparound, then that
should be at full speed, since there's nothing else to do at that point.
> The only problem I would see is if someone has an application that does a
> lot of schema changes (doesn't sound like a good idea anyway). In that case
> they would better issue manual vacuums on such tables.
I can't see a use case for regular DDL as part of an application, on an
otherwise integral table (lots of updates and deletes).
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2007-10-12 11:20:08 | pg_tablespace_size() |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2007-10-12 10:47:44 | Re: Some questions about mammoth replication |