From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: startup process stuck in recovery |
Date: | 2017-10-09 21:29:38 |
Message-ID: | 5873.1507584578@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> writes:
>> On Oct 9, 2017, at 13:26, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> My bet is that the source server did something that's provoking O(N^2)
>> behavior in the standby server's lock management. It's hard to say
>> exactly what, but I'm wondering about something like a plpgsql function
>> taking an AccessExclusiveLock inside a loop that repeatedly traps an
>> exception. Can you correlate where the standby is stuck with what
>> was happening on the source?
> Interestingly, the OIDs for the relations on which the locks on the secondary are held aren't present in pg_class, and they're clustered together. Could a large number of temporary table creations that are being undone by an abort cause this?
Hmm. Creating or dropping a temp table does take AccessExclusiveLock,
just as it does for a non-temp table. In principle we'd not have to
transmit those locks to standbys, but I doubt that the WAL code has
enough knowledge to filter them out. So a lot of temp tables and
a lot of separate subtransactions could be a nasty combination.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | rammohan ganapavarapu | 2017-10-09 23:06:04 | Can master and slave on different PG versions? |
Previous Message | Christophe Pettus | 2017-10-09 21:24:00 | Re: startup process stuck in recovery |