| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Log inability to lock pages during vacuum |
| Date: | 2014-12-18 20:55:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20141218205505.GC5023@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-12-18 16:41:04 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> + if (scan_all)
> + appendStringInfo(&buf, _("waited for %d buffer pins\n"),
> + vacrelstats->pinned_pages);
> + else
> + appendStringInfo(&buf,
> + _("skipped %d pages due to buffer pins\n"),
> + vacrelstats->pinned_pages);
Unless I miss something this is, as mentioned before, not
correct. scan_all doesn't imply at all that we waited for buffer
pins. We only do so if lazy_check_needs_freeze(buf). Which usually won't
be true for a *significant* number of pages.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-12-18 21:02:54 | Re: Proposal: Log inability to lock pages during vacuum |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-12-18 20:50:31 | Re: Proposal: Log inability to lock pages during vacuum |