From: | "Dave Cramer" <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: can't stop autovacuum by HUP'ing the server |
Date: | 2008-08-26 15:28:03 |
Message-ID: | 491f66a50808260828h7b878d51k4619d002f45adb37@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com
> wrote:
> Dave Cramer wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera <
> > > alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > >> Certainly not, and that's not what I see here either. I assume
> process
> > >> 25407 is (was) the postmaster, yes?
> > >>
> > >> If you "show autovacuum", is it on?
> > >
> > > Yes that was the postmaster, and I did check to see if autovacuum was
> on,
> > > and it was not.
> > >
> > So where do we go from here ?
>
> The only possible explanation for this behavior is that somebody is
> signalling the postmaster due to Xid wraparound issues. This is keyed
> on some GUC vars -- Perhaps you have autovacuum_freeze_max_age set to an
> insane value?
Doesn't appear to be insane ?
#autovacuum_freeze_max_age = 200000000 # maximum XID age before forced
vacuum
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-08-26 15:41:09 | Re: can't stop autovacuum by HUP'ing the server |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-08-26 14:56:13 | Re: can't stop autovacuum by HUP'ing the server |