pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jeff Frost <jeff@pgexperts.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Matheus de Oliveira <matioli.matheus@gmail.com>
Cc: Soni M <diptatapa@gmail.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Postgres Replaying WAL slowly
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:04:20 -0400
Message-ID: <24455.1404169460@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <571D044B-260A-4E06-ACBC-8869B8F73C0F@pgexperts.com>
References: <20140630171416.GK21422@awork2.anarazel.de>
	<CAAMgDXnT8cQbwxcNXfFKONrRVAKoGhR-3FWYSX_5gJcFrEMPMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<8DA8C140-818D-4184-AAE6-CA37278B983C@pgexperts.com>
	<20140630183908.GT26930@awork2.anarazel.de>
	<0A7B96D4-DB10-49A8-A268-F28960F2E137@pgexperts.com>
	<F3E1168D-8D49-407E-A8B7-B3ED81C93DCB@pgexperts.com>
	<20300.1404156750@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<C64129CF-D034-4311-AD32-09EF048C3E93@pgexperts.com>
	<CAJghg4Lq2rg7mMzRfEartAQK1c83veoW3TWroQsSvXMqBQ9h+w@mail.gmail.com>
	<B22B06CF-2BC0-4AB6-8E3C-FACDF8193F23@pgexperts.com>
	<20140630201523.GV26930@awork2.anarazel.de>
	<943ECC8E-8899-422E-937C-50DE20E1F7AC@pgexperts.com>
	<21474.1404160784@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<2E438E7D-E3C1-47A1-A1AF-9FE50A14A302@pgexperts.com>
	<571D044B-260A-4E06-ACBC-8869B8F73C0F@pgexperts.com>
List-Unsubscribe:  <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>

Jeff Frost <jeff@pgexperts.com> writes:
>>> So it seems like we have a candidate explanation.  I'm a bit surprised
>>> that StandbyReleaseLocks would get this slow if there are only a dozen
>>> AccessExclusiveLocks in place at any one time, though.  Perhaps that
>>> was a low point and there are often many more?

> Since we turned on the monitoring for that, we had a peak of 13,550
> AccessExclusiveLocks.

Ah ... that's more like a number I can believe something would have
trouble coping with.  Did you see a noticeable slowdown with this?
Now that we've seen that number, of course it's possible there was an
even higher peak occurring when you saw the trouble.

Perhaps there's an O(N^2) behavior in StandbyReleaseLocks, or maybe
it just takes awhile to handle that many locks.

Did you check whether the locks were all on temp tables of the
ON COMMIT DROP persuasion?

			regards, tom lane


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



view thread (33+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <24455.1404169460@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../24455.1404169460@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/24455.1404169460@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
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-performance@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, jeff@pgexperts.com, andres@2ndquadrant.com, matioli.matheus@gmail.com, diptatapa@gmail.com, hlinnakangas@vmware.com
  Subject: Re: Postgres Replaying WAL slowly
  In-Reply-To: <24455.1404169460@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* 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