Re: Maintenance form exection thread - Mailing list pgadmin-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: Maintenance form exection thread
Date
Msg-id m2i9837222c1004100214za47e62e5v5bc390e23c7200f7@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Maintenance form exection thread  (Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info>)
Responses Re: Maintenance form exection thread  (Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info>)
List pgadmin-hackers
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 10:58, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:
> Le 06/04/2010 22:33, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit :
>> Le 06/04/2010 21:48, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
>>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 21:01, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I reading things right that we actually execute things from the
>>>>> maintenance dialog (like VACUUM) on a separate thread, to keep the UI
>>>>> responsive? Yet, it keeps hanging when we do that. My guess is that
>>>>> we're "using up" the connection we have, and as soon as somebody else
>>>>> needs access to the connection to do things like refresh tree
>>>>> information, we hang and wait. Or am I reading this wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>> If we are, should we perhaps consider firing off these jobs on a
>>>>> separate connection?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that would seem like a sensible idea. At first thought I guessed
>>>> it was an issue like this
>>>> http://svn.pgadmin.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi?rev=6458&view=rev, but on
>>>> reflection I think your much more simple explanation is the likely
>>>> cause.
>>>
>>> I don' t have time to look into it right onw. Do you, or should I just
>>> add a ticket for it for "eventual fixing"?
>>>
>>
>> Add the ticket, I will take care of it this week if no one does.
>>
>
> Here is a patch for trunk.
>
> Oh, and one question. You created a *bug* ticket. Do you mean you want
> this applied on the 1.10 branch? I prefer to ask as I don't really think
> this is a bug, it's more of an enhancement to me.

I do consider it a bug.

If it's backpatchable or not depends on the patch complexity, imo.
Given that the solution is creating a separate connection for it, I
think it should *not* be applied to 1.10, because it's a large
problem. If someone had corrected my diagnosis and found a
lower-impact way, then it could've been.

The patch looks surprisingly simple :-) But I can't see why it
wouldn't be correct - looks good to me.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

pgadmin-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "pgAdmin Trac"
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgAdmin III] #165: Maintenance work blocks UI - use separate connection?
Next
From: Guillaume Lelarge
Date:
Subject: Re: Maintenance form exection thread