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
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 |