On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> We've occasionally seen problems with VACUUM getting stuck for failure
> to acquire a cleanup lock due to, for example, a cursor holding a pin
> on the buffer page. In the worst case, this can cause an undetected
> deadlock, if the backend holding the buffer pin blocks trying to
> acquire a heavyweight lock that is in turn blocked by VACUUM. A while
> back, someone (Greg Stark? me?) floated the idea of not waiting for
> the cleanup lock. If we can't get it immediately, or within some
> short period of time, then we just skip the page and continue on.
>
> Today I had what might be a better idea: don't try to acquire a
> cleanup lock at all. Instead, acquire an exclusive lock. After
> having done so, observe the pin count. If there are no other buffer
> pins, that means our exclusive lock is actually a cleanup lock, and we
> proceed as now. If other buffer pins do exist, then we can't
> defragment the page, but that doesn't mean no useful work can be done:
> we can still mark used line pointers dead, or dead line pointers
> unused. We cannot defragment, but that can be done either by the next
> VACUUM or by a HOT cleanup. We can even arrange - using existing
> mechanism - to leave behind a hint that the page is a good candidate
> for a HOT cleanup, by setting pd_prune_xid to, say, FrozenXID.
>
> Like the idea of skipping pages on which we can't acquire a cleanup
> lock altogether, this should prevent VACUUM from getting stuck trying
> to lock a heap page. While buffer pins can be held for extended
> periods of time, I don't think there is any operation that holds a
> buffer content lock more than very briefly. Furthermore, unlike the
> idea of skipping the page altogether, we could use this approach even
> during an anti-wraparound vacuum.
>
> Thoughts?
Not waiting seems like a good idea.
Not returning to the block while it is in RAM or not cleaning the
block at all would cause a different performance issues, which I would
wish to avoid.
Hot Standby has specific code to avoid this situation. Perhaps you
could copy that, not sure.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
