Re: "stuck spinlock"

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: "stuck spinlock"
Date: 2013-12-13 02:15:29
Message-ID: 22457.1386900929@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> writes:
> On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Presumably, we are seeing the victim rather than the perpetrator of
>> whatever is going wrong.

> This is probing about a bit blindly, but the only thing I can see about this system that is in some way unique (and this is happening on multiple machines, so it's unlikely to be hardware) is that there are a relatively large number of relations (like, 440,000+) distributed over many schemas. Is there anything that pins a buffer that is O(N) to the number of relations?

It's not a buffer *pin* that's at issue, it's a buffer header spinlock.
And there are no loops, of any sort, that are executed while holding
such a spinlock. At least not in the core PG code. Are you possibly
using any nonstandard extensions?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2013-12-13 02:18:03 Re: SSL: better default ciphersuite
Previous Message Christophe Pettus 2013-12-13 02:12:27 Re: "stuck spinlock"