Re: Bug in VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bug in VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL
Date: 2016-09-06 12:10:18
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYkNzH3W9e+PkY3TE5yOZfXqkYq7u4SjP_yaYuW80p6fg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm also wondering why we don't use lock_timeout when the user sets it?
> Not a bug, but patch attached anyway.
> vacuum_truncate_use_lock_timeout.v1.patch

This part seems fairly random. I don't think it makes sense to assume
that the timeout after which the user wants a lock acquisition request
to error out is the same time that they want as the interval between
retries. Those things seem fairly thoroughly unconnected, and this
change could fairly easily cause truncation problems for people who
have the lock timeout set to a relatively long time (e.g. 10 minutes).

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-09-06 12:19:28 Re: Declarative partitioning - another take
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-09-06 12:07:03 Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API