| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Robert Norris <srn(at)commsecure(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: How to cripple a postgres server |
| Date: | 2002-05-28 03:21:44 |
| Message-ID: | 29818.1022556104@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Stephen Robert Norris <srn(at)commsecure(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> On Tue, 2002-05-28 at 12:44, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, you mean if the 800 other connections are *not* idle, you can
>> do VACUUMs with impunity? If so, I'd agree we got a bug ...
> Yes, that's what I'm saying.
Fascinating.
> I suspect the comment near the async_notify code explains the problem -
> where it talks about idle backends having to be woken up to clear out
> pending events...
Well, we need to do that, but your report seems to suggest that that
code path isn't getting the job done completely --- my first guess is
that a new normal query has to arrive before a SIGUSR2'd backend is
completely happy again. Interesting.
You didn't specify: what PG version are you running, and on what
platform?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Robert Norris | 2002-05-28 03:28:15 | Re: How to cripple a postgres server |
| Previous Message | Stephen Robert Norris | 2002-05-28 03:15:45 | Re: How to cripple a postgres server |