| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench stuck with 100% cpu usage |
| Date: | 2017-09-29 06:48:30 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.20.1709290844380.23406@lancre |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>> - Run pgbench -c 10 -T 100
>>> - Stop postgres with -m immediate
>>
>> That is a strange test to run, but it would be better if the behavior was
>> not that one.
>
>
> Well, I think it's a very legitimate test, not for testing performance, but
> testing crash recovery and I use it very often.
Ok, interesting. Now I understand your purpose.
You may consider something like "BEGIN; UPDATE ...; \sleep 100 ms;
COMMIT;" so that a crash is most likely to occur with plenty transactions
in progress but without much load.
--
Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | chenhj | 2017-09-29 07:07:46 | Re: [PATCH]make pg_rewind to not copy useless WAL files |
| Previous Message | Albe Laurenz | 2017-09-29 06:48:11 | Re: Enhancements to passwordcheck |