pg.ddx.io pgsql-admin@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedPANIC killing vacuum process
11+ messages / 4 participants
[nested] [flat]
* PANIC killing vacuum process
@ 2010-11-03 16:06 Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2010-11-03 16:28 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
2010-11-03 17:14 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Silvio Brandani @ 2010-11-03 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-admin
Alls,
we have develop a script to execute the vacuum full on all tables of our
very big database , since it is a 24 x 7 available system we have not a
timeframe to exec the vacuum full.
so we try with this script running the vauum full table by table and if
the vacuum generate the waiting status for other connections we kill the
vacuum .
But we encounter following problem:
with kill command:
2010-11-03 14:25:27 CET [19324]: [4-1] FATAL: terminating connection
due to administrator command
2010-11-03 14:25:27 CET [19324]: [5-1] STATEMENT: vacuum full analyze
verbose tracking.as_history_status ;
2010-11-03 14:25:27 CET [19324]: [6-1] PANIC: cannot abort transaction
75073917, it was already committed
with pg_cancel_backend(pid) command:
CPU 0.18s/0.26u sec elapsed 3.79 sec.
ERROR: canceling statement due to user request
PANIC: cannot abort transaction 75081452, it was already committed
server closed the connection unexpectedly
This probably means the server terminated abnormally
before or while processing the request.
The connection to the server was lost. Attempting reset: Failed.
!> quit
-> \q
the server crash and we have a service unavailiability on our production
system.
Is it possible to softly kill a vacuum process without risk a panic ?????
thanks a lot
Silvio Brandani
---
Utilizziamo i dati personali che la riguardano esclusivamente per nostre finalità amministrative e contabili, anche quando li comunichiamo a terzi. Informazioni dettagliate, anche in ordine al Suo diritto di accesso e agli altri Suoi diritti, sono riportate alla pagina http://www.savinodelbene.com/privacy.html
Se avete ricevuto questo messaggio per errore Vi preghiamo di ritornarlo al mittente eliminandolo assieme agli eventuali allegati, ai sensi art. 616 codice penale http://www.savinodelbene.com/privacy/codice_penale_616.html
L'Azienda non si assume alcuna responsabilità giuridica qualora pervengano da questo indirizzo messaggi estranei all'attività lavorativa o contrari a norme.
--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: PANIC killing vacuum process
2010-11-03 16:06 PANIC killing vacuum process Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
@ 2010-11-03 16:28 ` Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
2010-11-03 16:41 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2010-11-03 16:55 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2010-11-03 17:00 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
1 sibling, 3 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Grittner @ 2010-11-03 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-admin; Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it> wrote:
> we have develop a script to execute the vacuum full on all tables
> of our very big database , since it is a 24 x 7 available system
> we have not a timeframe to exec the vacuum full.
> so we try with this script running the vauum full table by table
> and if the vacuum generate the waiting status for other
> connections we kill the vacuum .
> But we encounter following problem:
> with kill command:
>
> 2010-11-03 14:25:27 CET [19324]: [4-1] FATAL: terminating
> connection due to administrator command
> 2010-11-03 14:25:27 CET [19324]: [5-1] STATEMENT: vacuum full
> analyze verbose tracking.as_history_status ;
> 2010-11-03 14:25:27 CET [19324]: [6-1] PANIC: cannot abort
> transaction 75073917, it was already committed
>
> with pg_cancel_backend(pid) command:
>
> CPU 0.18s/0.26u sec elapsed 3.79 sec.
> ERROR: canceling statement due to user request
> PANIC: cannot abort transaction 75081452, it was already
> committed server closed the connection unexpectedly
> This probably means the server terminated abnormally
> before or while processing the request.
> The connection to the server was lost. Attempting reset: Failed.
> !> quit
> -> \q
>
> the server crash and we have a service unavailiability on our
> production system.
What version of PostgreSQL is this?
> Is it possible to softly kill a vacuum process without risk a
> panic ?????
Normally, yes. VACUUM FULL is more prone to problems than a normal
vacuum, especially if you are using an old version. There are very
few circumstances where VACUUM FULL is the right thing to use.
Have you recovered your database yet? If so how? (Restart, PITR
backup, pg_dump output, etc.)
-Kevin
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: PANIC killing vacuum process
2010-11-03 16:06 PANIC killing vacuum process Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2010-11-03 16:28 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
@ 2010-11-03 16:41 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2010-11-03 17:03 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2010-11-03 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>; +Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org, "Silvio Brandani" <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it> wrote:
>> we have develop a script to execute the vacuum full on all tables
>> of our very big database , since it is a 24 x 7 available system
>> we have not a timeframe to exec the vacuum full.
>> so we try with this script running the vauum full table by table
>> and if the vacuum generate the waiting status for other
>> connections we kill the vacuum .
>> [ and get ]
>> 2010-11-03 14:25:27 CET [19324]: [6-1] PANIC: cannot abort
>> transaction 75073917, it was already committed
> What version of PostgreSQL is this?
Anything pre-9.0 might do that; it's one of the known problems with the
old VACUUM FULL implementation that made us decide to get rid of it.
However, versions that are less than about a year old do have a hack
that should avoid the PANIC for a query-cancel interrupt ... at the
cost of ignoring the cancel interrupt, so that's not all that helpful
a solution here.
>> Is it possible to softly kill a vacuum process without risk a
>> panic ?????
> Normally, yes. VACUUM FULL is more prone to problems than a normal
> vacuum, especially if you are using an old version. There are very
> few circumstances where VACUUM FULL is the right thing to use.
Indeed. If you think you need to use VACUUM FULL on a routine basis,
rethink that.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: PANIC killing vacuum process
2010-11-03 16:06 PANIC killing vacuum process Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2010-11-03 16:28 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
2010-11-03 16:41 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
@ 2010-11-03 17:03 ` Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Silvio Brandani @ 2010-11-03 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>; pgsql-admin
Tom Lane ha scritto:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
>
>> Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it> wrote:
>>
>>> we have develop a script to execute the vacuum full on all tables
>>> of our very big database , since it is a 24 x 7 available system
>>> we have not a timeframe to exec the vacuum full.
>>> so we try with this script running the vauum full table by table
>>> and if the vacuum generate the waiting status for other
>>> connections we kill the vacuum .
>>> [ and get ]
>>> 2010-11-03 14:25:27 CET [19324]: [6-1] PANIC: cannot abort
>>> transaction 75073917, it was already committed
>>>
>
>
>> What version of PostgreSQL is this?
>>
>
> Anything pre-9.0 might do that; it's one of the known problems with the
> old VACUUM FULL implementation that made us decide to get rid of it.
>
> However, versions that are less than about a year old do have a hack
> that should avoid the PANIC for a query-cancel interrupt ... at the
> cost of ignoring the cancel interrupt, so that's not all that helpful
> a solution here.
>
>
>>> Is it possible to softly kill a vacuum process without risk a
>>> panic ?????
>>>
>
>
>> Normally, yes. VACUUM FULL is more prone to problems than a normal
>> vacuum, especially if you are using an old version. There are very
>> few circumstances where VACUUM FULL is the right thing to use.
>>
>
> Indeed. If you think you need to use VACUUM FULL on a routine basis,
> rethink that.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
We were running vacuum full because of a lot of IO problems , so we try
this way to reorganize tables....
should be better thane normal vacuum or you think the benefits of
running vacuum full are not so good to run it and a normal vacuum
analyze is enough ???
thanks,
--
Silvio Brandani
---
Utilizziamo i dati personali che la riguardano esclusivamente per nostre finalità amministrative e contabili, anche quando li comunichiamo a terzi. Informazioni dettagliate, anche in ordine al Suo diritto di accesso e agli altri Suoi diritti, sono riportate alla pagina http://www.savinodelbene.com/privacy.html
Se avete ricevuto questo messaggio per errore Vi preghiamo di ritornarlo al mittente eliminandolo assieme agli eventuali allegati, ai sensi art. 616 codice penale http://www.savinodelbene.com/privacy/codice_penale_616.html
L'Azienda non si assume alcuna responsabilità giuridica qualora pervengano da questo indirizzo messaggi estranei all'attività lavorativa o contrari a norme.
--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: PANIC killing vacuum process
2010-11-03 16:06 PANIC killing vacuum process Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2010-11-03 16:28 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
@ 2010-11-03 16:55 ` Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Silvio Brandani @ 2010-11-03 16:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>; +Cc: pgsql-admin
Kevin Grittner ha scritto:
> Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it> wrote:
>
>
>> we have develop a script to execute the vacuum full on all tables
>> of our very big database , since it is a 24 x 7 available system
>> we have not a timeframe to exec the vacuum full.
>> so we try with this script running the vauum full table by table
>> and if the vacuum generate the waiting status for other
>> connections we kill the vacuum .
>> But we encounter following problem:
>> with kill command:
>>
>> 2010-11-03 14:25:27 CET [19324]: [4-1] FATAL: terminating
>> connection due to administrator command
>> 2010-11-03 14:25:27 CET [19324]: [5-1] STATEMENT: vacuum full
>> analyze verbose tracking.as_history_status ;
>> 2010-11-03 14:25:27 CET [19324]: [6-1] PANIC: cannot abort
>> transaction 75073917, it was already committed
>>
>> with pg_cancel_backend(pid) command:
>>
>> CPU 0.18s/0.26u sec elapsed 3.79 sec.
>> ERROR: canceling statement due to user request
>> PANIC: cannot abort transaction 75081452, it was already
>> committed server closed the connection unexpectedly
>> This probably means the server terminated abnormally
>> before or while processing the request.
>> The connection to the server was lost. Attempting reset: Failed.
>> !> quit
>> -> \q
>>
>> the server crash and we have a service unavailiability on our
>> production system.
>>
>
> What version of PostgreSQL is this?
>
>
>> Is it possible to softly kill a vacuum process without risk a
>> panic ?????
>>
>
> Normally, yes. VACUUM FULL is more prone to problems than a normal
> vacuum, especially if you are using an old version. There are very
> few circumstances where VACUUM FULL is the right thing to use.
>
> Have you recovered your database yet? If so how? (Restart, PITR
> backup, pg_dump output, etc.)
>
> -Kevin
>
>
Postgres version :
PostgreSQL 8.3.1 on x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC)
4.1.2 20070626 (Red Hat 4.1.2-14)
--
Silvio Brandani
---
Utilizziamo i dati personali che la riguardano esclusivamente per nostre finalità amministrative e contabili, anche quando li comunichiamo a terzi. Informazioni dettagliate, anche in ordine al Suo diritto di accesso e agli altri Suoi diritti, sono riportate alla pagina http://www.savinodelbene.com/privacy.html
Se avete ricevuto questo messaggio per errore Vi preghiamo di ritornarlo al mittente eliminandolo assieme agli eventuali allegati, ai sensi art. 616 codice penale http://www.savinodelbene.com/privacy/codice_penale_616.html
L'Azienda non si assume alcuna responsabilità giuridica qualora pervengano da questo indirizzo messaggi estranei all'attività lavorativa o contrari a norme.
--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: PANIC killing vacuum process
2010-11-03 16:06 PANIC killing vacuum process Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2010-11-03 16:28 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
@ 2010-11-03 17:00 ` Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Silvio Brandani @ 2010-11-03 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>; +Cc: pgsql-admin
Kevin Grittner ha scritto:
> Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it> wrote:
>
>
>> we have develop a script to execute the vacuum full on all tables
>> of our very big database , since it is a 24 x 7 available system
>> we have not a timeframe to exec the vacuum full.
>> so we try with this script running the vauum full table by table
>> and if the vacuum generate the waiting status for other
>> connections we kill the vacuum .
>> But we encounter following problem:
>> with kill command:
>>
>> 2010-11-03 14:25:27 CET [19324]: [4-1] FATAL: terminating
>> connection due to administrator command
>> 2010-11-03 14:25:27 CET [19324]: [5-1] STATEMENT: vacuum full
>> analyze verbose tracking.as_history_status ;
>> 2010-11-03 14:25:27 CET [19324]: [6-1] PANIC: cannot abort
>> transaction 75073917, it was already committed
>>
>> with pg_cancel_backend(pid) command:
>>
>> CPU 0.18s/0.26u sec elapsed 3.79 sec.
>> ERROR: canceling statement due to user request
>> PANIC: cannot abort transaction 75081452, it was already
>> committed server closed the connection unexpectedly
>> This probably means the server terminated abnormally
>> before or while processing the request.
>> The connection to the server was lost. Attempting reset: Failed.
>> !> quit
>> -> \q
>>
>> the server crash and we have a service unavailiability on our
>> production system.
>>
>
> What version of PostgreSQL is this?
>
>
>> Is it possible to softly kill a vacuum process without risk a
>> panic ?????
>>
>
> Normally, yes. VACUUM FULL is more prone to problems than a normal
> vacuum, especially if you are using an old version. There are very
> few circumstances where VACUUM FULL is the right thing to use.
>
> Have you recovered your database yet? If so how? (Restart, PITR
> backup, pg_dump output, etc.)
>
> -Kevin
>
>
We had to kill the postmaster and restart the database recovering it.
thanks
--
Silvio Brandani
---
Utilizziamo i dati personali che la riguardano esclusivamente per nostre finalità amministrative e contabili, anche quando li comunichiamo a terzi. Informazioni dettagliate, anche in ordine al Suo diritto di accesso e agli altri Suoi diritti, sono riportate alla pagina http://www.savinodelbene.com/privacy.html
Se avete ricevuto questo messaggio per errore Vi preghiamo di ritornarlo al mittente eliminandolo assieme agli eventuali allegati, ai sensi art. 616 codice penale http://www.savinodelbene.com/privacy/codice_penale_616.html
L'Azienda non si assume alcuna responsabilità giuridica qualora pervengano da questo indirizzo messaggi estranei all'attività lavorativa o contrari a norme.
--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: PANIC killing vacuum process
2010-11-03 16:06 PANIC killing vacuum process Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
@ 2010-11-03 17:14 ` Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
2010-11-03 17:52 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Scott Marlowe @ 2010-11-03 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>; +Cc: pgsql-admin
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Silvio Brandani
<silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it> wrote:
>
> Alls,
>
> we have develop a script to execute the vacuum full on all tables of our
Vacuum full is more of a recovery / offline command and is to be used
sparingly, especially before 9.0.
> very big database , since it is a 24 x 7 available system we have not a
> timeframe to exec the vacuum full.
Is there a reason you're avoiding autovacuum and tuning it to keep up?
It's usually the better option.
> PostgreSQL 8.3.1 on x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu
Is there a good reason for avoiding about two years of updates
(8.3.latest has a lot of bug fixes.)
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: PANIC killing vacuum process
2010-11-03 16:06 PANIC killing vacuum process Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2010-11-03 17:14 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
@ 2010-11-03 17:52 ` Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
2010-11-04 13:59 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Grittner @ 2010-11-03 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>; Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>; +Cc: pgsql-admin
Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
> Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it> wrote:
>> we have develop a script to execute the vacuum full on all tables
> Vacuum full is more of a recovery / offline command and is to be
> used sparingly, especially before 9.0.
And before 9.0, most of the situations where you might reasonably
consider VACUUM FULL, you were better off with CLUSTER.
>> very big database , since it is a 24 x 7 available system we have
>> not a timeframe to exec the vacuum full.
>
> Is there a reason you're avoiding autovacuum and tuning it to keep
> up? It's usually the better option.
Even if you have a case for doing database vacuums during off-peak
hours, you should almost certainly use autovacuum with settings at
least as aggressive as the default. At our shop we configure
autovacuum more aggressively than the default, to keep our small,
volatile tables tidy, and run a vacuum of the entire database each
night (which is, by the way, a very different thing than a VACUUM
FULL).
>> PostgreSQL 8.3.1 on x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu
>
> Is there a good reason for avoiding about two years of updates
> (8.3.latest has a lot of bug fixes.)
Yeah, this is important. See this page:
http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning
Many of those fixes to 8.3 after 8.3.1 were to vacuum or autovacuum.
You can poke around the release notes here:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/release.html
If problems with autovacuum were what drove you toward VACUUM FULL,
you should update and try autovacuum again. Going from 8.3.1 to
8.3.12 is pretty painless and very safe -- just read the release
notes for details on what types of indexes need to be rebuilt after
the update. (That probably won't affect you, but you should check.)
-Kevin
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: PANIC killing vacuum process
2010-11-03 16:06 PANIC killing vacuum process Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2010-11-03 17:14 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
2010-11-03 17:52 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
@ 2010-11-04 13:59 ` Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2010-11-05 13:17 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Silvio Brandani @ 2010-11-04 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>; +Cc: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>; pgsql-admin
Kevin Grittner ha scritto:
> Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it> wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> we have develop a script to execute the vacuum full on all tables
>>>
>
>
>> Vacuum full is more of a recovery / offline command and is to be
>> used sparingly, especially before 9.0.
>>
>
> And before 9.0, most of the situations where you might reasonably
> consider VACUUM FULL, you were better off with CLUSTER.
>
>
>>> very big database , since it is a 24 x 7 available system we have
>>> not a timeframe to exec the vacuum full.
>>>
>> Is there a reason you're avoiding autovacuum and tuning it to keep
>> up? It's usually the better option.
>>
>
> Even if you have a case for doing database vacuums during off-peak
> hours, you should almost certainly use autovacuum with settings at
> least as aggressive as the default. At our shop we configure
> autovacuum more aggressively than the default, to keep our small,
> volatile tables tidy, and run a vacuum of the entire database each
> night (which is, by the way, a very different thing than a VACUUM
> FULL).
>
>
>>> PostgreSQL 8.3.1 on x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu
>>>
>> Is there a good reason for avoiding about two years of updates
>> (8.3.latest has a lot of bug fixes.)
>>
>
> Yeah, this is important. See this page:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning
>
> Many of those fixes to 8.3 after 8.3.1 were to vacuum or autovacuum.
> You can poke around the release notes here:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/release.html
>
> If problems with autovacuum were what drove you toward VACUUM FULL,
> you should update and try autovacuum again. Going from 8.3.1 to
> 8.3.12 is pretty painless and very safe -- just read the release
> notes for details on what types of indexes need to be rebuilt after
> the update. (That probably won't affect you, but you should check.)
>
> -Kevin
>
>
Thanks a lot.
We will migrate to 8.3.12 and keep autovacuum running instead of vauum full.
--
Silvio Brandani
---
Utilizziamo i dati personali che la riguardano esclusivamente per nostre finalità amministrative e contabili, anche quando li comunichiamo a terzi. Informazioni dettagliate, anche in ordine al Suo diritto di accesso e agli altri Suoi diritti, sono riportate alla pagina http://www.savinodelbene.com/privacy.html
Se avete ricevuto questo messaggio per errore Vi preghiamo di ritornarlo al mittente eliminandolo assieme agli eventuali allegati, ai sensi art. 616 codice penale http://www.savinodelbene.com/privacy/codice_penale_616.html
L'Azienda non si assume alcuna responsabilità giuridica qualora pervengano da questo indirizzo messaggi estranei all'attività lavorativa o contrari a norme.
--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: PANIC killing vacuum process
2010-11-03 16:06 PANIC killing vacuum process Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2010-11-03 17:14 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
2010-11-03 17:52 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
2010-11-04 13:59 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
@ 2010-11-05 13:17 ` Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2010-11-05 13:43 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Silvio Brandani @ 2010-11-05 13:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>; +Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>; Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>; pgsql-admin
Silvio Brandani ha scritto:
> Kevin Grittner ha scritto:
>> Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>>> we have develop a script to execute the vacuum full on all tables
>>>>
>>
>>
>>> Vacuum full is more of a recovery / offline command and is to be
>>> used sparingly, especially before 9.0.
>>>
>>
>> And before 9.0, most of the situations where you might reasonably
>> consider VACUUM FULL, you were better off with CLUSTER.
>>
>>
>>>> very big database , since it is a 24 x 7 available system we have
>>>> not a timeframe to exec the vacuum full.
>>>>
>>> Is there a reason you're avoiding autovacuum and tuning it to keep
>>> up? It's usually the better option.
>>>
>>
>> Even if you have a case for doing database vacuums during off-peak
>> hours, you should almost certainly use autovacuum with settings at
>> least as aggressive as the default. At our shop we configure
>> autovacuum more aggressively than the default, to keep our small,
>> volatile tables tidy, and run a vacuum of the entire database each
>> night (which is, by the way, a very different thing than a VACUUM
>> FULL).
>>
>>
>>>> PostgreSQL 8.3.1 on x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu
>>>>
>>> Is there a good reason for avoiding about two years of updates
>>> (8.3.latest has a lot of bug fixes.)
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, this is important. See this page:
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning
>>
>> Many of those fixes to 8.3 after 8.3.1 were to vacuum or autovacuum.
>> You can poke around the release notes here:
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/release.html
>>
>> If problems with autovacuum were what drove you toward VACUUM FULL,
>> you should update and try autovacuum again. Going from 8.3.1 to
>> 8.3.12 is pretty painless and very safe -- just read the release
>> notes for details on what types of indexes need to be rebuilt after
>> the update. (That probably won't affect you, but you should check.)
>>
>> -Kevin
>>
>>
> Thanks a lot.
> We will migrate to 8.3.12 and keep autovacuum running instead of vauum
> full.
>
>
>
>
the postgres 9.0.x could be consider a stable version ?? or is better to
wait 9.1 , in this case when will be released ??
thanks
--
Silvio Brandani
Infrastructure Administrator
SDB Information Technology
Phone: +39.055.3811222
Fax: +39.055.5201119
---
Utilizziamo i dati personali che la riguardano esclusivamente per nostre finalità amministrative e contabili, anche quando li comunichiamo a terzi. Informazioni dettagliate, anche in ordine al Suo diritto di accesso e agli altri Suoi diritti, sono riportate alla pagina http://www.savinodelbene.com/privacy.html
Se avete ricevuto questo messaggio per errore Vi preghiamo di ritornarlo al mittente eliminandolo assieme agli eventuali allegati, ai sensi art. 616 codice penale http://www.savinodelbene.com/privacy/codice_penale_616.html
L'Azienda non si assume alcuna responsabilità giuridica qualora pervengano da questo indirizzo messaggi estranei all'attività lavorativa o contrari a norme.
--
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: PANIC killing vacuum process
2010-11-03 16:06 PANIC killing vacuum process Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2010-11-03 17:14 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
2010-11-03 17:52 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
2010-11-04 13:59 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2010-11-05 13:17 ` Re: PANIC killing vacuum process Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
@ 2010-11-05 13:43 ` Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Grittner @ 2010-11-05 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>; +Cc: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>; pgsql-admin
Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it> wrote:
> the postgres 9.0.x could be consider a stable version ?? or is
> better to wait 9.1 , in this case when will be released ??
You would gain nothing by waiting for 9.1. 9.0.x is no more or less
a stable version than 8.3.x. It's the "x" which means something
regarding release maturity. Since you had enough tolerance of
"early adopter" issues to have been using 8.3.1 until very recently,
you're probably OK with 9.0.1; but this time I would recommend
applying minor releases as they are published. Over time people
find odd little corner cases where there are problems, and the
release becomes more stable as the patches to fix them are applied.
-Kevin
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-11-05 13:43 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-11-03 16:06 PANIC killing vacuum process Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2010-11-03 16:28 ` Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
2010-11-03 16:41 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2010-11-03 17:03 ` Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2010-11-03 16:55 ` Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2010-11-03 17:00 ` Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2010-11-03 17:14 ` Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
2010-11-03 17:52 ` Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
2010-11-04 13:59 ` Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2010-11-05 13:17 ` Silvio Brandani <silvio.brandani@tech.sdb.it>
2010-11-05 13:43 ` Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox