Re: Parallel vacuum workers prevent the oldest xmin from advancing

From: John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel vacuum workers prevent the oldest xmin from advancing
Date: 2021-11-24 14:15:52
Message-ID: CAFBsxsFi3E5hxC20M6RznzP-wGWNBr8R9YEgGz9-L_etffXnJQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 7:28 AM 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.

I set this "committed" in the CF app.

--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2021-11-24 14:37:05 Re: Rename dead_tuples to dead_items in vacuumlazy.c
Previous Message Robert Haas 2021-11-24 13:49:15 Re: Rename dead_tuples to dead_items in vacuumlazy.c