From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Chris Cawley <cj_cawley@yahoo.com>
cc: "pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: What do you do with a long running rollback
In-reply-to: <1977259621.1023368.1637951601701@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <1977259621.1023368.1637951601701.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
 <1977259621.1023368.1637951601701@mail.yahoo.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Chris Cawley <cj_cawley@yahoo.com>
	message dated "Fri, 26 Nov 2021 18:33:21 +0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <440097.1637952136.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 13:42:16 -0500
Message-ID: <440098.1637952136@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/440098.1637952136%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Chris Cawley <cj_cawley@yahoo.com> writes:
> It's been like that for several days already.

Really?  Rollback is O(1) in Postgres.

I could possibly believe that it's blocked on a lock, but even
that would be a bug, because transaction abort should never try
to take any new locks.

A perhaps-more-plausible theory is that you've enabled synchronous
commit but your replica is failing to ack the transmission of the
abort's WAL record.

What are you looking at exactly?

			regards, tom lane