Re: Autovacuum of pg_database - Mailing list pgsql-admin

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Autovacuum of pg_database
Date
Msg-id 20160509213030.GA496423@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Autovacuum of pg_database  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Autovacuum of pg_database
List pgsql-admin
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > These are all shared catalogs.  There are others, so you may still see
> > more.  We got another report for pg_database
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/A9D40BB7-CFD6-46AF-A0A1-249F04878A2A%40amazon.com
> > so I suppose there really is a bug.  I don't know what's going on there.
>
> I think it's pretty obvious: autovacuum.c's rule for detecting whether
> some other worker is already processing table X is wrong when X is a
> shared table.  I propose the attached patch.

Now that I actually tried this, it turned out that this problem is not
so simple.  vacuum.c already has logic to use conditional acquire of the
table-level lock, and if not available it skips the table:

LOG:  skipping vacuum of "pg_shdepend" --- lock not available

so an autovacuum worker is never "stuck" behind another worker trying to
vacuum the table.  This code is already in 9.2.  I suppose the only way
for multiple workers to get stuck is the relatively new logic in
lazy_truncate_heap that retries multiple times when AEL is not
available.  I haven't tried to replicate this yet.

In other words, the patches proposed here would not fix the actual
problem.  Back to the drawing board, it seems.

--
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


pgsql-admin by date:

Previous
From: bricklen
Date:
Subject: Re: amount of WAL logs larger than expected
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Autovacuum of pg_database