Re: Autovacuum of pg_database

All,

We were bit a couple months ago by a very similar issue where autovacuum
ignored pg_type. A manual vacuum fixed it but since that table is abused
by every client using libpq which is darn near everything I suspect it went
bad in a hurry.

Question is, will this patch be backported to 9.3?

Thanks,
-Greg

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> I think it's pretty obvious: autovacuum.c's rule for detecting whether
> > >> some other worker is already processing table X is wrong when X is a
> > >> shared table. I propose the attached patch.
> >
> > > Hmm, I have pretty much the same patch, except I added the flag to
> > > struct autovac_table and have it populated by table_recheck_autovac.
> > > Haven't tested this yet, which is why I hadn't posted it.
> >
> > Actually, I realized after looking at it that the new wi_tableshared
> > field is unnecessary in my patch. The only important part is that
> > knowledge of relisshared be available when we're looking for conflicting
> > workers, and that is entirely local in do_autovacuum(). I'd started the
> > patch by adding wi_tableshared, on the expectation that it would be
> > necessary, but it ain't ...
>
> OK, if I understand you correctly then that is what my patch does -- the
> "sharedrel" flag in my patch is only inside do_autovacuum. Do you
> already have a test rig for this? If not, I can set one up so that I
> can push the patch hopefully later today.
>
> --
> Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
>