Re: Parallel vacuum workers prevent the oldest xmin from advancing

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel vacuum workers prevent the oldest xmin from advancing
Date: 2021-10-11 00:50:54
Message-ID: YWOKbkkimrLnriJ8@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 09:23:32AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 12:13 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>> * PROC_VACUUM_FOR_WRAPAROUND. Should be innocuous I think, since the
>> "parent" process already has this flag and thus shouldn't be cancelled.
>
> Currently, we don't support parallel vacuum for autovacuum. So
> parallel workers for vacuum don't have these two flags.

That's something that should IMO be marked in the code as a comment as
something to worry about once/if someone begins playing with parallel
autovacuum. If the change involving autovacuum is simple, I see no
reason to not add this part now, though.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2021-10-11 01:21:28 Re: strange case of "if ((a & b))"
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2021-10-11 00:45:26 Re: strange case of "if ((a & b))"