Have any other users had this?

(In reply to comment #1)

Have any other users had this?

Gah, checking the logs, I see that the last 10 are not going through either.

rwikipedia wrote:

Umm...has anyone noticed the job queue has been over a million since a slave crashed a few days ago? Name changes are pretty low on queue priority, so you'll probably be waiting a while. Check [[w:en:Special:Statistics]]

e wrote:

(In reply to comment #3)

Umm...has anyone noticed the job queue has been over a million since a slave
crashed a few days ago? Name changes are pretty low on queue priority, so
you'll probably be waiting a while. Check [[w:en:Special:Statistics]]

Yes, indeed. You possibly may be looking at quite a while. There may be a possibility of speeding it up though.

magnusanimum wrote:

(In reply to comment #3)

Umm...has anyone noticed the job queue has been over a million since a slave
crashed a few days ago? Name changes are pretty low on queue priority, so
you'll probably be waiting a while. Check [[w:en:Special:Statistics]]

I don't think renames have anything to do with the job queue...

axel9891 wrote:

I renamed Magnus animum on Meta yesterday, and the contributions didn't change straightaway either.

robchur wrote:

RenameUser shouldn't be putting updates for the revision table into the job queue; this strikes me as madness; the table should be indexed well enough that the updates can be done along with the user update.

This will now require the attention of a shell user (to do a one-off job queue run for the English Wikipedia), and I suggest altering the current, paranoid job queue use in the extension.

magnusanimum wrote:

(In reply to comment #7)

RenameUser shouldn't be putting updates for the revision table into the job
queue; this strikes me as madness; the table should be indexed well enough that
the updates can be done along with the user update.

This will now require the attention of a shell user (to do a one-off job queue
run for the English Wikipedia), and I suggest altering the current, paranoid
job queue use in the extension.

Should someone contact brion/starling/avar, or will they know about this bug quickly w/o being emailed (since a lot of devs seem to...)?

bugs wrote:

(In reply to comment #8)

(In reply to comment #7)

RenameUser shouldn't be putting updates for the revision table into the job
queue; this strikes me as madness; the table should be indexed well enough that
the updates can be done along with the user update.

This will now require the attention of a shell user (to do a one-off job queue
run for the English Wikipedia), and I suggest altering the current, paranoid
job queue use in the extension.

Should someone contact brion/starling/avar, or will they know about this bug
quickly w/o being emailed (since a lot of devs seem to...)?

There's a mailing list and a live feed we can get. :-) But if you really feel they need to know and would be able to fix it, go ahead and contact them (probably best on IRC).

axel9891 wrote:

(In reply to comment #9)

(In reply to comment #8)

(In reply to comment #7)

RenameUser shouldn't be putting updates for the revision table into the job
queue; this strikes me as madness; the table should be indexed well enough that
the updates can be done along with the user update.

This will now require the attention of a shell user (to do a one-off job queue
run for the English Wikipedia), and I suggest altering the current, paranoid
job queue use in the extension.

Should someone contact brion/starling/avar, or will they know about this bug
quickly w/o being emailed (since a lot of devs seem to...)?

There's a mailing list and a live feed we can get. :-) But if you really feel
they need to know and would be able to fix it, go ahead and contact them
(probably best on IRC).

They were already contacted via those means.

jeluf wrote:

I've reset the job queue runners, they were hanging after the master switches. enwiki's queue lenght is slowly decreasing.