| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Log inability to lock pages during vacuum |
| Date: | 2014-11-10 17:28:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20141110172830.GB1791@alvin.alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 11/7/14, 8:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> >>The problem right now is there's no way to actually obtain evidence that
> >>this is (or isn't) something to worry about, because we just silently skip
> >>pages. If we had any kind of tracking on this we could stop guessing. :(
> >
> >I could see logging it, but I agree with Andres and Alvaro that the
> >odds are strongly against there being any actual problem here.
>
> I'm fine with that. Any other objections? Andres?
If what we want is to quantify the extent of the issue, would it be more
convenient to save counters to pgstat? Vacuum already sends pgstat
messages, so there's no additional traffic there.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2014-11-10 17:31:57 | Re: PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE - maximum size of GIN pending list Re: HEAD seems to generate larger WAL regarding GIN index |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2014-11-10 17:19:52 | Re: remove pg_standby? |