Horton

Re: We need to log aborted autovacuums

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>

View thread
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-01-16T20:50:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 1/16/11 11:19 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I would prefer it if we had a settable lock timeout, as suggested many
> moons ago. When that was discussed before it was said there was no
> difference between a statement timeout and a lock timeout, but I think
> there clearly is, this case being just one example.

Whatever happend to lock timeouts, anyway?  We even had some patches
floating around for 9.0 and they disappeared.

However, we'd want a separate lock timeout for autovac, of course.  I'm
not at all keen on a *statement* timeout on autovacuum; as long as
autovacuum is doing work, I don't want to cancel it.  Also, WTF would we
set it to?

Going the statement timeout route seems like a way to create a LOT of
extra work, troubleshooting, getting it wrong, and releasing patch
updates.  Please let's just create a lock timeout.

-- 
                                  -- Josh Berkus
                                     PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
                                     http://www.pgexperts.com