Re: How about a option to disable autovacuum cancellation on lock conflict?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: How about a option to disable autovacuum cancellation on lock conflict?
Date: 2014-12-02 18:19:12
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaB8rnqM9fvKbER59S7VbSYvOO8ADnsV4exon3W3KqV9g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> What do you mean by "never succeed"? Is it skipping a large number of pages?
> Might re-trying the locks within the same vacuum help, or are the user locks
> too persistent?

You are confused. He's talking about the relation-level lock that
vacuum attempts to take before doing any work at all on a given table,
not the per-page cleanup locks that it takes while processing each
page. If the relation-level lock can't be acquired, the whole table
is skipped.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2014-12-02 18:31:51 Re: Turning recovery.conf into GUCs
Previous Message Robert Haas 2014-12-02 18:17:23 Re: Review of GetUserId() Usage