From: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: page is uninitialized --- fixing |
Date: | 2008-03-30 09:46:09 |
Message-ID: | 47EF6161.7030201@kaltenbrunner.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
> This is not entirely out of the question, because of the designed-in
> property that a freshly initialized page is only inserted into by
> the backend that got it --- no one else will know there is any
> free space in it until VACUUM first passes over it. So if there
> are a lot of different sessions writing into this table you don't
> need to assume more than about one tuple per page. Still, it's
> kinda hard to believe that the first two backends could remain stuck
> for so long as to let ~800 other insertions happen.
depending on how the multipathing and recovery works on that particular
SAN/OS combination it might very well be that some processes are getting
their IO hold much longer than some other processes.
Maybe the first two backends had IO in-flight and the OS needed time to
requeue/resend those after the SAN recovered and "new" backends were
able to do IO immediately ?
Stefan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tino Wildenhain | 2008-03-30 10:59:05 | Re: Survey: renaming/removing script binaries (createdb, createuser...) |
Previous Message | Reece Hart | 2008-03-30 03:46:00 | Re: Survey: renaming/removing script binaries (createdb, createuser...) |