pgsql: Fix VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL
Fix VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL
lazy_truncate_heap() was waiting for
VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL, but in microseconds
not milliseconds as originally intended.
Found by code inspection.
Simon Riggs
Branch
------
master
Details
-------
http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/dcb12ce8d8691e0e526d3f38d14c4d7fc9c664f5
Modified Files
--------------
src/backend/commands/vacuumlazy.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
Fix VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL
lazy_truncate_heap() was waiting for
VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL, but in microseconds
not milliseconds as originally intended.
Don't we need to back-patch this?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 7 September 2016 at 13:47, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
Fix VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL
lazy_truncate_heap() was waiting for
VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL, but in microseconds
not milliseconds as originally intended.Don't we need to back-patch this?
If we do then a database-wide VACUUM on a busy database will take
substantially longer than it does now.
That may not be perceived as a "fix" by everybody, so we should not do
it without an explicit agreement by many.
Thoughts?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
On 7 September 2016 at 13:47, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
lazy_truncate_heap() was waiting for
VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL, but in microseconds
not milliseconds as originally intended.
Don't we need to back-patch this?
If we do then a database-wide VACUUM on a busy database will take
substantially longer than it does now.
On the other hand, it's also more likely to successfully perform desired
truncations.
That may not be perceived as a "fix" by everybody, so we should not do
it without an explicit agreement by many.
Agreed, but I vote with Fujii-san for back-patching.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 7 September 2016 at 14:58, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
That may not be perceived as a "fix" by everybody, so we should not do
it without an explicit agreement by many.Agreed, but I vote with Fujii-san for back-patching.
No problem with backpatching, just wanted some +1s before I did it.
Will do that tomorrow.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers