Re: Bug in VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Bug in VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL
Date
Msg-id CANP8+jLizgEka7_y3Wj+jf6fU-HW1SS2YehiSthtJ54Z8M-V=A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Bug in VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 6 September 2016 at 11:30, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> In vacuumlazy.c, VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL is described as
> being in ms on line 85, yet it is used on line 1759 in a call to
> pg_usleep, so is treated as microseconds rather than milliseconds.
>
> As a result, the timeout during lazy_truncate_heap() is actually only
> 5ms long, not 5s long.
>
> So this looks to me like a bug, patch attached, for back-patching to 9.1
> vacuum_lock_wait_ms.v1,patch
>
> Objections?

I'm inclined to backpatch this for 9.6 only, unless I hear more.

For earlier releases this will suddenly make VACUUMs take 5 secs where
they used to take 50ms, which could be a big surprise for some people
running database wide VACUUMs.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore)"
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgres abort found in 9.3.11
Next
From: Jeevan Chalke
Date:
Subject: Re: PassDownLimitBound for ForeignScan/CustomScan