Re: autovacuum hung?

From: Brian Cox <brian(dot)cox(at)ca(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane [tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: autovacuum hung?
Date: 2009-05-31 17:27:11
Message-ID: 4A22BDEF.9090103@ca.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Tom Lane [tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us] wrote:
>
> Are those processes actually doing anything, or just waiting? strace
> or local equivalent would be the most conclusive check.
These must not have been hung, because they finally completed (after
10-15 hrs - some time between 11pm and 8am). Question is why does it
take so long to do this on such a relatively small table?

> This query isn't very helpful because it fails to show locks that are
> not directly associated with tables.
How can that (locks not directly associated...) be determined?

Thanks,
Brian

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-05-31 17:32:07 Re: autovacuum hung?
Previous Message Fabrix 2009-05-31 16:37:33 Re: Scalability in postgres