From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Failed to request an autovacuum work-item in silence |
Date: | 2018-01-24 01:44:26 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoC8bhnB_e=j+2R3tvF6U+xhi_1Vr2oJ17gJ-9BuOTaM=w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 8:03 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
<fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Em ter, 23 de jan de 2018 às 03:36, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
> escreveu:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> While reading the code, I realized that the requesting an autovacuum
>> work-item could fail in silence if work-item array is full. So the
>> users cannot realize that work-item is never performed.
>> AutoVacuumRequestWork() seems to behave so from the initial
>> implementation but is there any reason of such behavior? It seems to
>> me that it can be a problem even now that there is only one kind of
>> work-item. Attached patch for fixing it.
>
>
> Seems reasonable but maybe you can use the word "worker" instead of "work
> item" for report message.
>
Thank you for the comment.
Or can we use the word "work-item" since the commit log and source
code use this word?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-01-24 02:06:17 | Re: Possible performance regression in version 10.1 with pgbench read-write tests. |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-01-24 01:41:21 | Re: pgsql: Add parallel-aware hash joins. |