Re: Failed to request an autovacuum work-item in silence

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Ildar Musin <i(dot)musin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Failed to request an autovacuum work-item in silence
Date: 2018-03-14 15:06:41
Message-ID: 20180314150641.pxoykg3j7winlsgx@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello,

Ildar Musin wrote:

> autovac_get_workitem_name() declaration seems redundant and should be
> removed. The same thing with including "utils/lsyscache.h" in brin.c.
>
> The 'requested' variable in brininsert() I would again rename to something
> like 'success' because a work item is requested anyway but what matters is
> whether the request was satisfied/successful.

Thanks, I pushed this. I agree with your comments; so I changed
'requested' to 'recorded' and removed those lines. I also reworded the
log message:

ereport(LOG,
(errcode(ERRCODE_PROGRAM_LIMIT_EXCEEDED),
errmsg("request for BRIN range summarization for index \"%s\" page %u was not recorded",
RelationGetRelationName(idxRel),
lastPageRange)));

And added a paragraph to the docs explaining this situation.

Now I'm wondering what will we tell users to do if they get this message
too frequently. Neither of the obvious options (1. changing the index's
pages_per_range to a larger value; 2. making autovacuum more frequent
somehow) seem terribly useful.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jesper Pedersen 2018-03-14 15:28:29 EXPLAIN of Parallel Append
Previous Message Claudio Freire 2018-03-14 15:05:45 Re: Faster inserts with mostly-monotonically increasing values