On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:20:46 -0500
Kevin Grittner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can confirm that the patch was in the snapshot I picked up this
> morning at about 10:30 CDT. We've been using it since then and
> have not seen the problem in spite of attempting to provoke it with
> database vacuum
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:09:58 -0400
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Might this be the same problem as the recent thread "database vacuum from
> > cron hanging" where Tom is: "I'm busy volatile-izing all the code in
> > bufmgr.c ... should be able
I can confirm that the patch was in the snapshot I picked up this
morning at about 10:30 CDT. We've been using it since then and
have not seen the problem in spite of attempting to provoke it with
database vacuums.
-Kevin
>>> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/13/05 2:09 PM >>>
Robert Creager <[E
Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Might this be the same problem as the recent thread "database vacuum from cron
> hanging" where Tom is: "I'm busy volatile-izing all the code in bufmgr.c ...
> should be able to commit a fix soon."?
Seems reasonably likely, seeing that the original repo
I have a vacuum process kicked of by autovacuum that appears hung and causing
general grief. When I put too many queries at the db in this state, the Context
Switches cruises up to ~90k and stay there. Queries that normally take < 1
second are up to over a minute. The autovacuum thread has been
