"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There's some things still to be desired here: if an autovac process is > involved in a hard deadlock, the patch doesn't favor zapping it over > anybody else, nor consider cancelling the autovac as an alternative to > rearranging queues for a soft deadlock. But dealing with that will open > cans of worms that I don't think we want to open for 8.3.
Can autovacuum actually get into a hard deadlock? Does it take more than one lock that can block others at the same time? I think there's a window where the process waiting directly on autovacuum could have already fired its deadlock check before it was waiting directly on autovacuum. But the only way I can see it happening is if another process is cancelled before its deadlock check fires and the signals are processed out of order. I'm not sure that's a case we really need to worry about. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
