Re: Parallel vacuum workers prevent the oldest xmin from advancing

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel vacuum workers prevent the oldest xmin from advancing
Date: 2021-11-17 11:27:42
Message-ID: CAA4eK1KBKtaJRWTi0Od_DEHP5D4mUd_ZOiF7U-ceZkkeRW52Bw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 1:06 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 8:45 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> The patch looks good to me. But I can't come up with a stable test for
> this. It seems to be hard without stopping and resuming parallel
> vacuum workers. Do you have any good idea?
>

No, let's wait for a day or so to see if anybody else has any ideas to
write a test for this case, otherwise, I'll check these once again and
push.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2021-11-17 12:45:03 Re: CREATE PUBLICATION should "See Also" CREATE SUBSCRIPTION
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2021-11-17 11:17:18 Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side