Re: Maintenance form exection thread

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, pgadmin-hackers <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Maintenance form exection thread
Date: 2010-04-10 09:14:21
Message-ID: m2i9837222c1004100214za47e62e5v5bc390e23c7200f7@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 10:58, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
> Le 06/04/2010 22:33, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit :
>> Le 06/04/2010 21:48, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
>>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 21:01, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I reading things right that we actually execute things from the
>>>>> maintenance dialog (like VACUUM) on a separate thread, to keep the UI
>>>>> responsive? Yet, it keeps hanging when we do that. My guess is that
>>>>> we're "using up" the connection we have, and as soon as somebody else
>>>>> needs access to the connection to do things like refresh tree
>>>>> information, we hang and wait. Or am I reading this wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>> If we are, should we perhaps consider firing off these jobs on a
>>>>> separate connection?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that would seem like a sensible idea. At first thought I guessed
>>>> it was an issue like this
>>>> http://svn.pgadmin.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi?rev=6458&view=rev, but on
>>>> reflection I think your much more simple explanation is the likely
>>>> cause.
>>>
>>> I don' t have time to look into it right onw. Do you, or should I just
>>> add a ticket for it for "eventual fixing"?
>>>
>>
>> Add the ticket, I will take care of it this week if no one does.
>>
>
> Here is a patch for trunk.
>
> Oh, and one question. You created a *bug* ticket. Do you mean you want
> this applied on the 1.10 branch? I prefer to ask as I don't really think
> this is a bug, it's more of an enhancement to me.

I do consider it a bug.

If it's backpatchable or not depends on the patch complexity, imo.
Given that the solution is creating a separate connection for it, I
think it should *not* be applied to 1.10, because it's a large
problem. If someone had corrected my diagnosis and found a
lower-impact way, then it could've been.

The patch looks surprisingly simple :-) But I can't see why it
wouldn't be correct - looks good to me.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgadmin-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Guillaume Lelarge 2010-04-10 09:37:47 Re: Maintenance form exection thread
Previous Message pgAdmin Trac 2010-04-10 08:58:54 Re: [pgAdmin III] #165: Maintenance work blocks UI - use separate connection?