On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 12:50 PM MichaelDBA wrote:
> And Just to reiterate my own understanding of this...
>
> autovacuum priority is less than a user-initiated request, so issuing a
> manual vacuum (user-initiated request) will not result in being cancelled.
>
Somethings happen in some
And Just to reiterate my own understanding of this...
autovacuum priority is less than a user-initiated request, so issuing a
manual vacuum (user-initiated request) will not result in being cancelled.
Regards,
Michael Vitale
Jeff Janes wrote on 12/6/2019 12:47 PM:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 06:49:06PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The only part that would get canceled in response to somebody taking a
> non-exclusive lock is the last step, which is truncation of unused blocks at
> the end of the table; that requires an exclusive lock.
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 10:55 AM Mike Schanne wrote:
> The error is not actually showing up very often (I have 8 occurrences from
> 11/29 and none since then). So maybe I should not be concerned about it.
> I suspect we have an I/O bottleneck from other logs (i.e. long checkpoint
> sync times),
Mike Schanne writes:
> The error is not actually showing up very often (I have 8 occurrences from
> 11/29 and none since then). So maybe I should not be concerned about it. I
> suspect we have an I/O bottleneck from other logs (i.e. long checkpoint sync
> times), so this error may be a
Mike Schanne writes:
> Is this what you are referring to?
> - Prevent VACUUM from trying to freeze an old multixact ID involving a
> still-running transaction (Nathan Bossart, Jeremy Schneider)
> This case would lead to VACUUM failing until the old transaction terminates.
>
.
From: Jeff Janes [mailto:jeff.ja...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019 6:55 PM
To: Mike Schanne
Cc: pgsql-performa...@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: autovacuum locking question
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 5:26 PM Mike Schanne
mailto:mscha...@kns.com>> wrote:
Hi,
I am investigating a perfo
/
Thanks,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019 6:49 PM
To: Mike Schanne
Cc: 'pgsql-performa...@postgresql.org'
Subject: Re: autovacuum locking question
Mike Schanne writes:
> I am investigating a performance problem in
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 5:26 PM Mike Schanne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am investigating a performance problem in our application and am seeing
> something unexpected in the postgres logs regarding the autovacuum.
>
>
>
> 2019-12-01 13:05:39.029
>
Mike Schanne writes:
> I am investigating a performance problem in our application and am seeing
> something unexpected in the postgres logs regarding the autovacuum.
> 2019-12-01 13:05:39.029
> UTC,"wb","postgres",6966,"127.0.0.1:53976",5ddbd990.1b36,17099,"INSERT
> waiting",2019-11-25
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:26 PM Mike Schanne wrote:
> I am concerned that if the autovacuum is constantly canceled, then the
> table never gets cleaned and its performance will continue to degrade over
> time. Is it expected for the vacuum to be canceled by an insert in this
> way?
>
>
>
> We
11 matches
Mail list logo
