|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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
* 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..?
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
PG_WAIT_TIMEOUT or WAIT_EVENT_PG_SLEEP ...
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.
|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|