From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Дмитрий Дегтярёв <degtyaryov(at)gmail(dot)com>, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Cpu usage 100% on slave. s_lock problem. |
Date: | 2013-09-17 13:18:54 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0weAh-qZQ_CCCNoded9wd9WrzVdmnyto_JN+kESjN-1Jw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2013-09-17 17:55:01 +0600, Дмитрий Дегтярёв wrote:
>> We have not been able to reproduce this problem on a test servers. Use this
>> patch to production servers do not dare.
>>
>> In the course of studying the problems we have identified that many queries
>> are executed on the slave several times slower. On master function
>> heap_hot_search_buffer execute 100 cycles, on the slave the same query with
>> the same plan function heap_hot_search_buffer execute 2000 cycles.
>> Also, we were able to reproduce the problem on the master and detect that
>> there s_lock of slow queries.
>
> What you describe is normally an indication that you have too many
> longrunning transactions around preventing hot pruning from working.
Do you think it's worth submitting the lock avoidance patch for formal review?
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-09-17 13:24:39 | Re: Cpu usage 100% on slave. s_lock problem. |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-09-17 11:59:26 | Re: Cpu usage 100% on slave. s_lock problem. |