Re: Unexpected VACUUM FULL failure

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unexpected VACUUM FULL failure
Date: 2007-08-09 01:24:24
Message-ID: 11549.1186622664@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I couldn't reproduce it in a few tries. A reasonable guess is that
>> it's triggered by autovacuum deciding to vacuum the table sometime
>> before the VACUUM FULL starts. Anyone want to try to reproduce it?

> Hum, aren't vacuums supposed to be blocked by each other?

Sure. I'm not thinking it's a case of concurrent vacuums (if it is,
we've got worse problems than anyone imagined), but rather that the
autovac left the table in a state that exposes a bug in the subsequent
VACUUM FULL. Since we've whacked the tqual.c logic around recently,
the problem might actually lie there...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brendan Jurd 2007-08-09 02:43:06 Re: Function structure in formatting.c
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-08-09 01:14:44 Re: Unexpected VACUUM FULL failure