From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Ondřej Světlík <osvetlik(at)flexibee(dot)eu>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Autovacuum of pg_database |
Date: | 2016-05-06 16:05:47 |
Message-ID: | 20160506160547.GA212152@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > These are all shared catalogs. There are others, so you may still see
> > more. We got another report for pg_database
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/A9D40BB7-CFD6-46AF-A0A1-249F04878A2A%40amazon.com
> > so I suppose there really is a bug. I don't know what's going on there.
>
> I think it's pretty obvious: autovacuum.c's rule for detecting whether
> some other worker is already processing table X is wrong when X is a
> shared table. I propose the attached patch.
Hmm, I have pretty much the same patch, except I added the flag to
struct autovac_table and have it populated by table_recheck_autovac.
Haven't tested this yet, which is why I hadn't posted it.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
autovac-shared.patch | text/x-diff | 3.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-06 16:13:47 | Re: Autovacuum of pg_database |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-06 14:17:04 | Re: Autovacuum of pg_database |