From: Nikhil Shetty <nikhil.dba04@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: vacuumdb idle processes
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2021 12:34:38 +0530
Message-ID: <CAFpL5VwDxPpwuMxzOAMo7cYfgNsMzBU2ob_N7xcsDS_VBgyF-Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1972046.1623436429@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <CAFpL5Vyb4dx=nqBZ_GB1M_TxA-3+E-bSav3fDQnVHW2udXEV5g@mail.gmail.com>
<1972046.1623436429@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Hi Tom,
Apparently not all that well, if it failed to keep us out of an
> autovacuum-to-prevent-wraparound situation. I suppose you had autovacuum
> disabled because you thought this lashup was sufficient?
No, autovacuum was enabled but seems it was not able to catch up with the
amount of transaction or it might have been delayed due to postgres
favouring other txns that conflict -- Need to check this though
Perhaps this is the last remaining table so vacuumdb has nothing
> else for them to do.
>
Does this mean vacuumdb will release all db connections(jobs - 8 in this
case) only after all connections have performed their vacuum and then
disconnected? Even if one is pending the others will be still connected but
in idle state? Is my understanding correct?
Thanks and Regards,
Nikhil
On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 12:03 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Nikhil Shetty <nikhil.dba04@gmail.com> writes:
> > I have done a setup to run vacuumdb with 8 parallel jobs daily. It has
> been
> > running quite well.
>
> Apparently not all that well, if it failed to keep us out of an
> autovacuum-to-prevent-wraparound situation. I suppose you had autovacuum
> disabled because you thought this lashup was sufficient?
>
> > Just today I saw there is an aggressive autovacuum process running(to
> > prevent wraparound) on one of the table. vacuumdb which started later
> > spawned the 8 connections. One connection (doing vacuum on the table on
> > which an aggressive autovacuum is running) is waiting for "autovacuum(to
> > prevent wraparound)" to complete while the other 7 connections are just
> > sitting idle.
>
> > I am okay that one connection is waiting since an aggressive autovacuum
> is
> > running on that table but how come other connections have not released
> the
> > sesion yet? Any reason for this?
>
> Perhaps this is the last remaining table so vacuumdb has nothing
> else for them to do.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: nikhil.dba04@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: vacuumdb idle processes
In-Reply-To: <CAFpL5VwDxPpwuMxzOAMo7cYfgNsMzBU2ob_N7xcsDS_VBgyF-Q@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
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