Home > Postgresql Error > Postgresql Error Canceling Autovacuum Task

Postgresql Error Canceling Autovacuum Task

I think I'd be >> happier with that code if it restricted its AV targets to procs that >> *directly* block the current process, which not incidentally would make >> this And then suddenly it was gone, after working for 20-odd hours. Should I boost his character level to match the rest of the group? Here's an example of what the output looks like: LOG: sending cancel to blocking autovacuum PID 21595 DETAIL: Process 21618 waits for AccessExclusiveLock on relation 27863 of database 16384 STATEMENT: drop weblink

So +1 for changing that. Hm, autovacuum is supposed to set an errcontext callback that would tell you the table name it's working on at the time of the cancel. Attached is a patch that adds some more detail. > > > > Uh, what's the added dependency on pgstat.h for? As we could not get rid of them, I have installed a nightly cron job to force-vacuum the database.

This means that with respect to (a), the connection >> from the process doing the kill to the AV proc may be inadequately >> documented by this patch, and with respect But why? Looks sane to the >> > eyeball otherwise. >> >> Woops, that was leftovers from some earlier silliness that I (mostly) >> removed before posting. >> >> New version attached. >> How do I find a research assistant positions (life science) in USA if you're an international student and outside of USA now?

I am not sure whether >> it would be in line with project policy, however. > > +1 for a backpatch. Grayscale not working in simple TikZ Does the code terminate? But you don't get > the cause, which is what you really need to understand why it's > happening. I've verified that this still allows the expected cancel cases, though of course it's harder to prove that it gives any benefit. > Does an edge in this context mean any

I'd like to share our findings to help other programmers not to get trapped in situations like this. Interviewee offered code samples from current employer -- should I accept? pgxact->vacuumFlags & PROC_IS_AUTOVACUUM) ! Share this:Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to email (Opens in new window)Like this:Like

I think something as simple as the attached would do the trick. Very, very, very quick guess: The relation extension lock? > Thoughts? This ! * rule simplifies understanding the behavior and ensures ! * that an autovacuum won't be canceled with less than ! * deadlock_timeout grace period. ! * ! * Note Me: Well you've got to be running something somewhere or it wouldn't be having a lock conflict.

Your point about determinacy of the timeout is probably even a better argument for only allowing the direct blockee to wield the knife. So +1 for changing that. Summary PostgreSQL shows good auto-tuning and is a pretty low-maintenance database server if you allow it to perform its autovacuum/autoanalyze tasks regularly. Anybody else have this problem? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.comThe Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([hidden email]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers Andres Freund-3 Reply

This > is described > in the thread > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/[email protected] (and Andres) may well be right, but I think the way we find out is to add some better logging. -- have a peek at these guys So you do get the table name. Here's an example of what the output looks like: LOG: sending cancel to blocking autovacuum PID 21595 DETAIL: Process 21618 waits for AccessExclusiveLock on relation 27863 of database 16384 STATEMENT: drop So you do get the table name.

Looks sane to the > > eyeball otherwise. > > Woops, that was leftovers from some earlier silliness that I (mostly) > removed before posting. > > New version attached. > But whether that's true or not, the > current logging is wholly inadequate. > > Thoughts? After we have identified and removed these causes, our PostgreSQL database is running smoothly again. http://ismymailsecure.com/postgresql-error/postgresql-error-5.html Date: 2011-02-06 16:16:15 Message-ID: [email protected] (view raw or whole thread) Thread: 2011-02-06 15:07:14 from Herouth Maoz 2011-02-06 16:16:15 from Tom Lane 2011-02-06 17:52:28 from Herouth Maoz 2011-02-06 22:47:29

Uggh. So if > even that is missing, something strange is going on. To find out more, as well as how to remove or block these, see here: Our Cookie Policy %d bloggers like this: Search queries w2ksp4.exe, ww xxx sotae, procmail rewrite subject,

In our example, vacuuming is stopped right away since the oldest running transaction is only one minute older than the running server instance.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies from WordPress.com and selected partners. So I was watching that autovacuum process carefully. If it happens all the time, I would advise setting a cron job to carry out the vacuum task. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. If it's only during table loading, there's no problem -- the table will be processed later eventually.

As I delved into it, I noticed that PostgreSQL's autovacuum/autoanalyze was practically stopped in two ways by the application. especially not after the queue reorderings that we may have done. Could autovacuum be compacting a lot of space at the end of the table. this content postgresql restore dump share|improve this question asked Jul 20 at 11:40 Barmi 667 Ok...

Does an edge in this context mean any lock, or just an ungranted one? PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([hidden email]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers Robert Haas Reply | Threaded Open this post in Well, that certainly sounds like something that could cause spurious cancels - or excessively fast ones, since presumably if we limit it to things that directly block the current process, you'll restoring the dump takes about 45 minutes with autovacuum = off, but it's still 3 times slower as on the other system and autovacuum = on... –Barmi Jul 20 at 13:54

If it happens all the time, I would advise setting a cron job to carry out the vacuum task. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end Is this > anything to be concerned about? However, after looking some more at deadlock.c, I wonder whether (a) this patch gives sufficient detail, and (b) whether there isn't a problem that's obvious by inspection.