From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Don Seiler <don(at)seiler(dot)us> |
Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: template0 needing vacuum freeze? |
Date: | 2020-05-19 01:51:11 |
Message-ID: | 28914.1589853071@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Don Seiler <don(at)seiler(dot)us> writes:
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:40 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
> wrote:
>> Perhaps autovacuum never handled "template0" because it concluded (rightly)
>> that it has to deal with "foo_db" first.
> Yes this DB had a table in it that had been autovacuuming since Feb 2. It's
> age is half way to wraparound so I'm in the middle of a manual VACUUM
> FREEZE on it. I'd be interested in knowing if that prevents template0 from
> autovacuuming itself. There are no other autovacuum jobs running.
I think we did put in a change that would prevent any one database from
completely consuming autovacuum's attention, even in wraparound-hazard
situations. Don't recall when.
Do you have an idea why autovac was failing to clear the issue on that one
problem table, though?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Don Seiler | 2020-05-19 02:11:03 | Re: template0 needing vacuum freeze? |
Previous Message | Don Seiler | 2020-05-19 01:45:07 | Re: template0 needing vacuum freeze? |