| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum bug |
| Date: | 2003-07-02 01:41:08 |
| Message-ID: | 04ef01c3403b$043312d0$2800a8c0@mars |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> There would be *zero* activity on a table undergoing vacuum full, unless
> your app has found a way around vacuum full's exclusive lock. You sure
> this wasn't a plain vacuum?
Hmm...correct. So I don't know what happened.
> > Then vacuum full failed after a while:
> > ERROR: simple_heap_update: tuple concurrently updated
>
> Were you doing VACUUM ANALYZEs?
The background vacuum was doing analyze, the full one was not.
> It's possible for two concurrent VACUUM ANALYZEs of the same table
> to get this failure from trying to concurrently update the same row in
> pg_statistic. (The cure for this seems worse than the disease: AFAICS
> you'd have to prevent *all* concurrent updates of pg_statistic by
> grabbing a table-level lock. So we just live with one of the analyzes
> reporting a failure. All the useful work gets done anyway, by one
> transaction or the other.)
Hmmm...I don't see why I would have had two concurrent analyzes going on...
I guess there's not enough info to diagnose it anyway...
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-07-02 01:42:52 | Re: Urgent : Regarding Submission of Code |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-07-02 01:40:01 | Re: Urgent : Regarding Submission of Code |