Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death
Date: 2021-03-22 17:48:26
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


* Thomas Munro (thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 7:57 AM Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> > > The if-we're-going-to-delay-anyway path in vacuum_delay_point seems
> > > OK to add a touch more overhead to, though.
> >
> > Alright, for this part at least, seems like it'd be something like the
> > attached.
> >
> > Only lightly tested, but does seem to address the specific example which
> > was brought up on this thread.
> >
> > Thoughts..?
> +1

Thanks for that. Attached is just a rebased version with a commit
message added. If there aren't any other concerns, I'll commit this in
the next few days and back-patch it. When it comes to 12 and older,
does anyone want to opine about the wait event to use? I was thinking

Or do folks think this shouldn't be backpatched? That would mean it
wouldn't help anyone for years, which would be pretty unfortuante, hence
my feeling that it's worthwhile to backpatch.



Attachment Content-Type Size
av_exit_pm_death_v2.patch text/x-diff 1.2 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2021-03-22 17:49:10 Re: Nicer error when connecting to standby with hot_standby=off
Previous Message Robert Haas 2021-03-22 17:38:36 Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods