Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

Greetings, * Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote: > * Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote: > > * Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 04:07:12PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:48 PM Stephen Frost > > > > wrote: > > > >>

Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

Greetings, * Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote: > * Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 04:07:12PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:48 PM Stephen Frost wrote: > > >> Thanks for that. Attached is just a rebased version with a co

Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

Greetings, * Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 04:07:12PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:48 PM Stephen Frost wrote: > >> Thanks for that. Attached is just a rebased version with a commit > >> message added. If there aren't any other

Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 04:07:12PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:48 PM Stephen Frost wrote: >> Thanks for that. Attached is just a rebased version with a commit >> message added. If there aren't any other concerns, I'll commit this in >> the next few days and back-patch i

Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:48 PM Stephen Frost wrote: > Thanks for that. Attached is just a rebased version with a commit > message added. If there aren't any other concerns, I'll commit this in > the next few days and back-patch it. When it comes to 12 and older, > does anyone want to opine abo

Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

Greetings, * Thomas Munro (thomas.mu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 7:57 AM Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > > > The if-we're-going-to-delay-anyway path in vacuum_delay_point seems > > > OK to add a touch more overhead to, though. > > > > Alright,

Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 7:57 AM Stephen Frost wrote: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > > The if-we're-going-to-delay-anyway path in vacuum_delay_point seems > > OK to add a touch more overhead to, though. > > Alright, for this part at least, seems like it'd be something like the > attache

Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 8:34 AM Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 5:36 PM Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Maybe instead of thinking specifically in terms of vacuum, we could > > count buffer accesses (read from kernel) and check the latch once every > > 1000th such, or something like that

Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 5:36 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Maybe instead of thinking specifically in terms of vacuum, we could > count buffer accesses (read from kernel) and check the latch once every > 1000th such, or something like that. Then a very long query doesn't > have to wait until it's run

Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

Greetings, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > On 2020-Oct-29, Stephen Frost wrote: > >> I do think it'd be good to find a way to check every once in a while > >> even when we aren't going to delay though. Not sure what the best > >> answer there is. > > > Maybe

Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

Greetings, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > On 2020-Oct-29, Stephen Frost wrote: > >> I do think it'd be good to find a way to check every once in a while > >> even when we aren't going to delay though. Not sure what the best > >> answer there is. > > > Maybe

Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

Alvaro Herrera writes: > On 2020-Oct-29, Stephen Frost wrote: >> I do think it'd be good to find a way to check every once in a while >> even when we aren't going to delay though. Not sure what the best >> answer there is. > Maybe instead of thinking specifically in terms of vacuum, we could > c

Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

On 2020-Oct-29, Stephen Frost wrote: > I do think it'd be good to find a way to check every once in a while > even when we aren't going to delay though. Not sure what the best > answer there is. Maybe instead of thinking specifically in terms of vacuum, we could count buffer accesses (read from

Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

Greetings, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2020-10-29 12:27:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Maybe put a check into vacuum_delay_point, and poll the pipe when we're > > about to sleep anyway? > > Perhaps we should just replace the pg_usleep() with a latch wait? I'm not sure why, bu

Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

Hi, On 2020-10-29 12:27:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Maybe put a check into vacuum_delay_point, and poll the pipe when we're > about to sleep anyway? Perhaps we should just replace the pg_usleep() with a latch wait? Greetings, Andres Freund

Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

On 2020-Oct-28, Alexander Kukushkin wrote: > Hello, > > I know, nobody in their mind should do that, but, if the postmaster > process is killed with SIGKILL signal, most backend processes > correctly notice the fact of the postmaster process absence and exit. > There is one exception though, when

Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

On 2020-Oct-29, Stephen Frost wrote: > > It's hard to do better than that, because on most platforms there's > > no way to get a signal on parent-process death, so the only way to > > notice would be to poll the postmaster-death pipe constantly; which > > would be hugely expensive in comparison to

Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

Stephen Frost writes: > I agree that 'constantly' wouldn't be great, but with some periodicity > that's more frequent than 'not until a few hours later when we finally > finish vacuuming this relation' would be nice. At least with autovauum > we may be periodically sleeping anyway so it doesn't s

Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

Greetings, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Victor Yegorov writes: > > ср, 28 окт. 2020 г. в 19:44, Alexander Kukushkin : > >> I know, nobody in their mind should do that, but, if the postmaster > >> process is killed with SIGKILL signal, most backend processes > >> correctly notice the f

Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

Victor Yegorov writes: > ср, 28 окт. 2020 г. в 19:44, Alexander Kukushkin : >> I know, nobody in their mind should do that, but, if the postmaster >> process is killed with SIGKILL signal, most backend processes >> correctly notice the fact of the postmaster process absence and exit. >> There is o

Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

ср, 28 окт. 2020 г. в 19:44, Alexander Kukushkin : > I know, nobody in their mind should do that, but, if the postmaster > process is killed with SIGKILL signal, most backend processes > correctly notice the fact of the postmaster process absence and exit. > There is one exception though, when the

Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

Hello, I know, nobody in their mind should do that, but, if the postmaster process is killed with SIGKILL signal, most backend processes correctly notice the fact of the postmaster process absence and exit. There is one exception though, when there are autovacuum worker processes they are continui