On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-08-31 19:31:47 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2018-Aug-31, David Pacheco wrote:
> >
> > > From reading the 9.6.3 source, it looks like the autovacuum process
> > > itself is single-threade
Hello,
We've been struggling with some major performance issues related to
autovacuum.
(I know this is a common problem.) For a while, we believed this was
primarily
related to I/O contention, but recent observations from our monitoring make
me
wonder if there's a deeper issue here, so I'm lookin
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Jerry Jelinek
wrote:
> As Dave described in his original email on this topic, we'd like to avoid
> recycling WAL files since that can cause performance issues when we have a
> read-modify-write on a file that has dropped out of the cache.
>
> I have implemented a
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > David Pacheco wrote:
> >> tl;dr: We've found that under many conditions, PostgreSQL's re-use of
> old
> >> WAL
> >> files appears to significantly degrade query latenc
tl;dr: We've found that under many conditions, PostgreSQL's re-use of old
WAL
files appears to significantly degrade query latency on ZFS. The reason is
complicated and I have details below. Has it been considered to make this
behavior tunable, to cause PostgreSQL to always create new WAL files
i
Thanks again for helping out.
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-12-04 13:57:52 -0800, David Pacheco wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > > FWIW, I'd like to see a report of this around the time the i
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2017-11-20 11:12:08 -0800, David Pacheco wrote:
> > $ ps -opid,rss,vsz,args -p 37627
> > PID RSS VSZ COMMAND
> > 37627 2980 14968 /opt/postgresql/9.2.4/bin/postgres -D /manatee/pg/data
> >
&
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:12 AM, David Pacheco wrote:
> I understand if the community isn't interested in fixing this case if
> other users aren't seeing it much, but surely it's still a bug that this
> unusual case can result in a deadlock?
>
I've filed bug
Thanks again for looking at this issue.
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2017-11-20 10:13:57 -0800, David Pacheco wrote:
> > I expect what happened is that the syslogger process attempted to
> allocate
> > memory, failed because
Responding to several points below.
Tom Lane wrote:
> David's report isn't too clear: did the syslogger process actually run
> out of memory and exit of its own volition after an ENOMEM, or did it get
> killed by the dreaded OOM killer? In either case, it's unclear whether
> it was really using a
10 matches
Mail list logo
