On 12/1/14, 11:57 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-11-30 20:46:51 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 11/10/14, 7:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
On the whole, I'm +1 for just logging the events and seeing what we learn
that way. That seems like an appropriate amount of effort for finding out
whether there is really an issue.
Attached is a patch that does this.
Unless somebody protests I plan to push this soon. I'll change two
things:
* Always use the same message, independent of scan_all. For one Jim's
version would be untranslatable, for another it's not actually
correct. In most cases we'll *not* wait, even if scan_all is
true as we'll often just balk after !lazy_check_needs_freeze().
Good point.
* Change the new bit in the errdetail. "could not acquire cleanup lock"
sounds too much like an error to me. "skipped %u pinned pages" maybe?
Seems reasonable.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
