| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Spiegelberg <gspiegelberg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ondřej Světlík <osvetlik(at)flexibee(dot)eu>, "[ADMIN]" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum of pg_database |
| Date: | 2016-05-06 16:33:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20160506163358.GA216510@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Hi Greg,
Greg Spiegelberg wrote:
> We were bit a couple months ago by a very similar issue where autovacuum
> ignored pg_type. A manual vacuum fixed it but since that table is abused
> by every client using libpq which is darn near everything I suspect it went
> bad in a hurry.
Hmm. The current report is about shared catalogs (pg_shdepend and
pg_database were reported as problematic) which pg_type is not, so I
doubt that this bugfix will have any impact in a problem vacuuming
pg_type.
I'm interested in seeing a more detailed report from you about the
pg_type vacuuming failure.
> Question is, will this patch be backported to 9.3?
Yes, in my opinion we would backpatch it, back to 9.1 even.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-06 16:38:16 | Re: Autovacuum of pg_database |
| Previous Message | Greg Spiegelberg | 2016-05-06 16:22:15 | Re: Autovacuum of pg_database |