Re: [HACKERS] 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Steve Kehlet <steve(dot)kehlet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Forums postgresql <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1
Date: 2015-06-08 17:33:17
Message-ID: CA+TgmobBHkFyDAF9_oS3ZY0DG6AkpgcbDLS-jCEfL6RbH2amDg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
>> On June 8, 2015 7:06:31 PM GMT+02:00, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> >I might be misreading the code, but PMSIGNAL_START_AUTOVAC_LAUNCHER
>> >only causes things to happen (i.e. a new worker to be started) when
>> >autovacuum is disabled. If autovacuum is enabled, postmaster
>> >receives the signal and doesn't do anything about it, because the
>> >launcher is already running. Of course, regularly scheduled autovac
>> >workers will eventually start running, but perhaps this is not good
>> >enough.
>>
>> Well that's just the same for the plain xid precedent? I'd not mind
>> improving further, but that seems like a separate thing.
>
> Sure. I just concern that we might be putting excessive trust on
> emergency workers being launched at a high pace. With normally
> configured systems (naptime=1min) it shouldn't be a problem, but we have
> seen systems with naptime set to one hour or so, and those might feel
> some pain; and it would get worse the more databases you have, because
> people might feel the need to space the autovac runs even more.
>
> (My personal alarm bells go off when I see autovac_naptime=15min or
> more, but apparently not everybody sees things that way.)

Uh, I'd echo that sentiment if you did s/15min/1min/

I think Andres's patch is just improving the existing mechanism so
that it's reliable, and you're proposing something notably different
which might be better, but which is really a different proposal
altogether.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-06-08 17:33:31 Re: [GENERAL] 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1
Previous Message Ravi Tammineni 2015-06-08 17:31:51 Postgresql BDR Replication Setup Issue

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-06-08 17:33:31 Re: [GENERAL] 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-06-08 17:31:08 Re: Dependency between bgw_notify_pid and bgw_flags