Subject: Re: Autovacuum of pg_shdepend
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
References: <20160504152518.GA102195@alvherre.pgsql>
 <17376.1462388827@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: =?UTF-8?B?T25kxZllaiBTdsSbdGzDrWs=?= <osvetlik@flexibee.eu>
Message-ID: <572A5B32.4050302@flexibee.eu>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 22:27:30 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <17376.1462388827@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org

Dne 4.5.2016 v 21:07 Tom Lane napsal(a):
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> Ooh, interesting bug.
>
>> As a workaround I suggest connecting to all of your databases except one
>> and disabling autovacuum for pg_shdepend.  Then the table will be
>> processed in the one database where you left it enabled, and the other
>> workers will take care of the rest of the tables.
>
>> I'll think about a real fix.
>
> Seems like a simple answer is to consider all shared catalogs to "belong"
> to only one database for autovac purposes, ie, only autovac workers in
> that database would consider vacuuming them.  The problem IIUC is that the
> interlock against multiple workers glomming onto the same table only
> considers other workers in the same DB.
>
> The fun part might be to decide which DB that is.  I don't think we should
> depend on any of the standard databases always being there.
>
> 			regards, tom lane
>

How about a new configuration option, something like

#autovacuum_maintenance_database = postgres

Ondřej


-- 
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin