Re: Unexpected VACUUM FULL failure - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Unexpected VACUUM FULL failure
Date
Msg-id 11549.1186622664@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Unexpected VACUUM FULL failure  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: Unexpected VACUUM FULL failure  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I couldn't reproduce it in a few tries.  A reasonable guess is that
>> it's triggered by autovacuum deciding to vacuum the table sometime
>> before the VACUUM FULL starts.  Anyone want to try to reproduce it?

> Hum, aren't vacuums supposed to be blocked by each other?

Sure.  I'm not thinking it's a case of concurrent vacuums (if it is,
we've got worse problems than anyone imagined), but rather that the
autovac left the table in a state that exposes a bug in the subsequent
VACUUM FULL.  Since we've whacked the tqual.c logic around recently,
the problem might actually lie there...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Unexpected VACUUM FULL failure
Next
From: "Brendan Jurd"
Date:
Subject: Re: Function structure in formatting.c