Re: Unexpected cross-database vacuum impact with hot_standby_feedback=on

From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Owen Stephens <owen(at)owenstephens(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unexpected cross-database vacuum impact with hot_standby_feedback=on
Date: 2023-05-19 20:50:16
Message-ID: 8f1be0222b943a6fc99e7ef6283bd144d2d3447a.camel@cybertec.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 17:34 +0100, Owen Stephens wrote:
> We are seeing that vacuum is prevented from cleaning dead tuples by an open
> transaction in a different database (where both connections are made against the
> primary server) when hot_standby_feedback = on but not when it is off. Is this
> cross-database interaction an expected effect of enabling hot_standby_feedback,
> even if the connections interact only with the primary not the replica?

Yes, that's what I would expect. There is only one "backend_xmin" in
"pg_stat_replication", which corresponds to the snapshot held by the oldest
query in any database on the standby server.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Elterman, Michael 2023-05-19 20:55:40 Re: Trying to understand a failed upgrade in AWS RDS
Previous Message Peter J. Holzer 2023-05-19 20:25:04 Re: Modeling combinations (options and dependencies)