Re: Autovacuum launcher doesn't notice death of postmaster immediately - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Autovacuum launcher doesn't notice death of postmaster immediately
Date
Msg-id 20070608151452.GI9071@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Autovacuum launcher doesn't notice death of postmaster immediately  ("Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>)
Responses Re: Autovacuum launcher doesn't notice death of postmaster immediately  (ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>)
Re: Autovacuum launcher doesn't notice death of postmaster immediately  (Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM>)
List pgsql-hackers
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD escribió:
> 
> > > > > > The launcher is set up to wake up in autovacuum_naptime
> seconds 
> > > > > > at most.
> > > 
> > > Imho the fix is usually to have a sleep loop.
> > 
> > This is what we have.  The sleep time depends on the schedule 
> > of next vacuum for the closest database in time.  If naptime 
> > is high, the sleep time will be high (depending on number of 
> > databases needing attention).
> 
> No, I meant a "while (sleep 1(or 10) and counter < longtime) check for
> exit" instead of "sleep longtime".

Ah; yes, what I was proposing (or thought about proposing, not sure if I
posted it or not) was putting a upper limit of 10 seconds in the sleep
(bgwriter sleeps 10 seconds if configured to not do anything).  Though
10 seconds may seem like an eternity for systems like the ones Peter was
talking about, where there is a script trying to restart the server as
soon as the postmaster dies.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                          Developer, http://www.PostgreSQL.org/
"Limítate a mirar... y algun día veras"


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Sullivan
Date:
Subject: Re: Controlling Load Distributed Checkpoints
Next
From: "Matthew T. O'Connor"
Date:
Subject: Re: COPYable logs status