Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A293C1337B49 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 10:50:06 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16012-06 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 14:49:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from spinlock.commandprompt.com (host-215.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.215]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCFCF1337B50 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 10:49:57 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spinlock.commandprompt.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63551348023; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 06:49:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at commandprompt.com Received: from spinlock.commandprompt.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (spinlock.commandprompt.com.commandprompt.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AfK4v6XGF5+R; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 06:49:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from perhan.alvh.no-ip.org (unknown [190.95.28.71]) by spinlock.commandprompt.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AABB1348022; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 06:49:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by perhan.alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B2F006E621; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:49:43 -0300 (CLST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Tom Lane , pgsql-admin Subject: Re: Autovacuum seems to block database: WARNING worker took too long to start From: Alvaro Herrera To: =?utf-8?q?Pablo_Delgado_D=C3=ADaz-Pache?= In-reply-to: References: <6991.1289762128@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:49:43 -0300 Message-Id: <1289918622-sup-8461@alvh.no-ip.org> User-Agent: Sup/git Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201011/134 X-Sequence-Number: 36100 Excerpts from Pablo Delgado Díaz-Pache's message of lun nov 15 04:52:53 -0300 2010: > > But it strikes me that the code comment is wrong in one significant way: > > if the postmaster were failing to heed SIGUSR1 at all, you could reach > > the timeout here, because the fork-failed signal wouldn't get sent. Hmm, yeah, I guess I wasn't considering the idea that postmaster was so busy with something else that it wouldn't be able to respond to the launcher's requests. As you say, if it went away entirely, autovacuum would also suicide. > > Could you try strace'ing the postmaster process to see what it's doing > > when this is happening? > > I definitely will. Yes, please. -- Álvaro Herrera The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support