From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum? |
Date: | 2022-02-03 21:50:48 |
Message-ID: | 20220203215048.rmwjzixdzaetedxq@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-02-03 13:42:20 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> They *do* have a choice. They can continue to operate the system in
> multi-user mode, they can have read access to their data, and they can
> run VACUUM and other non-XID-allocating commands to fix the issue.
> Sure, their application can't run commands that allocate XIDs, but
> it's not going to be able to do that if they go to single-user mode
> either.
I wonder if we shouldn't add some exceptions to the xid allocation
prevention. It makes sense that we don't allow random DML. But it's e.g. often
more realistic to drop / truncate a few tables with unimportant content,
rather than spend the time vacuuming those. We could e.g. allow xid
consumption within VACUUM, TRUNCATE, DROP TABLE / INDEX when run at the top
level for longer than we allow it for anything else.
> But it would still be better than going into single-user mode, which
> provides even less functionality and has basically no advantages of
> any kind.
Indeed. Single user is the worst response to this (and just about anything
else, really). Even just getting into the single user mode takes a while
(shutdown checkpoint). The user interface is completely different (and
awful). The buffer cache is completely cold. The system is slower because
there's no wal writer / checkpointer running. Which basically is a list of
things one absolutely do not wants when confronted with a wraparound
situation.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-02-03 21:55:37 | Re: archive modules |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-02-03 21:45:52 | Re: archive modules |