Re: hung backends stuck in spinlock heavy endless loop

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: hung backends stuck in spinlock heavy endless loop
Date: 2015-01-14 15:11:47
Message-ID: 20150114151147.GQ5245@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2015-01-14 10:05:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> What are the autovac processes doing (according to pg_stat_activity)?
>
> > pid,running,waiting,query
> > 7105,00:28:40.789221,f,autovacuum: VACUUM ANALYZE pg_catalog.pg_class

It'd be interesting to know whether that vacuum gets very frequent
semaphore wakeups. Could you strace it for a second or three?

How did this perform < 9.4? Can you guess how many times these dynamic
statements are planned? How many different relations are accessed in the
dynamically planned queries?

> Hah, I suspected as much. Is that the one that's stuck in
> LockBufferForCleanup, or the other one that's got a similar backtrace
> to all the user processes?

Do you have a theory? Right now it primarily looks like contention on a
single buffer due to the high number of dynamic statements, possibly
made worse by the signalling between normal pinners and vacuum waiting
for cleanup.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-01-14 15:13:32 Re: hung backends stuck in spinlock heavy endless loop
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2015-01-14 15:08:04 Re: hung backends stuck in spinlock heavy endless loop