From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | lyes(dot)amd(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #14941: Vacuum crashes |
Date: | 2017-12-01 17:15:47 |
Message-ID: | cabd2b8a-ebbc-ad38-3ca2-113882afd12a@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On 12/01/2017 05:09 PM, lyes(dot)amd(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>
> Bug reference: 14941
> Logged by: Lyes Ameddah
> Email address: lyes(dot)amd(at)gmail(dot)com
> PostgreSQL version: 9.6.0
The current minor version in 9.6 branch is 9.6. You're missing a year
worth of bugfixes ...
> Operating system: CentOs 7
> Description:
>
> Hello,
>
> I make a complete empty once a week in an automated way and it happens that
> the vacuum is stuck on a table (perhaps another process has a lock first).
>
1) Completely empty what?
2) Do you mean autovacuum or manual vacuum?
3) Do you see waiting locks in pg_locks catalog while this is happening?
SELECT * FROM pg_locks WHERE NOT granted;
>
> The behavior I would like to see is that the void ignores this table and
> moves to another instead of being blocked.
>
I believe autovacuum should not block waiting for a heavy-weight lock on
a table since this commit that went into 9.1:
So I'm wondering what problem you're running into.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2017-12-01 17:17:45 | Re: BUG #14940: Duplicated records inspite of primary key and unique constraint |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-12-01 17:15:13 | Re: BUG #14940: Duplicated records inspite of primary key and unique constraint |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-12-01 17:31:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Issues with logical replication |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-01 17:13:01 | Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables |