Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvherre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Do you have a vacuum in cron or something like that? Â As Tom says, if it >> had been autovacuum, it should have been cancelled automatically (else >> we've got a bug); but something invoking vacuum externally wouldn't >> have, so what you describe is what we would expect. > then we have a bug (at least in 8.3, haven't tried in 8.4)... i see > this a month ago, an autovacuum blocking a lot of concurrent updates > and selects... once i pg_cancel_backend() the autovacuum process the > other ones starting to move Hmm ... actually there is one case where autovac won't allow itself to be kicked off locks, which is if it's performing an anti-wraparound vacuum. Perhaps anti-wraparound vacuums should skip trying to truncate relations? I'm not convinced that that explains Jaime's report though. You'd expect AW vacuums to only happen on mostly-unused tables, not ones that are sufficiently central to an application to result in blocking a lot of queries ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
