Re: Autovacuum launcher doesn't notice death of postmaster immediately

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "Andrew Hammond" <andrew(dot)george(dot)hammond(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Autovacuum launcher doesn't notice death of postmaster immediately
Date: 2007-06-08 14:57:59
Message-ID: E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA579021B347A@m0143.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches


> > > > > The launcher is set up to wake up in autovacuum_naptime
seconds
> > > > > at most.
> >
> > Imho the fix is usually to have a sleep loop.
>
> This is what we have. The sleep time depends on the schedule
> of next vacuum for the closest database in time. If naptime
> is high, the sleep time will be high (depending on number of
> databases needing attention).

No, I meant a "while (sleep 1(or 10) and counter < longtime) check for
exit" instead of "sleep longtime".

Andreas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-06-08 15:00:50 Re: BUG #3326: Invalid lower bound of autovacuum_cost_limit
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-06-08 14:54:26 Re: [PATCHES] [BUGS] BUG #3326: Invalid lower bound of autovacuum_cost_limit

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-06-08 15:00:34 Re: Synchronized scans
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-06-08 14:54:26 Re: [PATCHES] [BUGS] BUG #3326: Invalid lower bound of autovacuum_cost_limit