From: | JC Praud <brutaltruth42(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: auto truncate/vacuum full |
Date: | 2009-10-28 10:53:35 |
Message-ID: | 8dc7b0c00910280353lbf880c9p574f371f6cf2c684@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>wrote:
> JC Praud escribió:
>
> > So my question are: can the autovacuum daemon perform vacuum full ? Or
> > another internal postgres process ? Could it come from the TRUNCATE I run
> > and canceled 4 days before ?
>
> No. Autovacuum only issues commands that don't lock tables strongly. I
> doubt this has anything to do with your old TRUNCATE either. My guess
> is that somebody else ran TRUNCATE and forgot to tell you; or maybe an
> automatic external process (cron or some such).
>
I suspected that, too. And asked the ninjas we have here ;) I also checked
the vacuum cronjobs we have.
None performing full vacuum on this table.
If it was the case, I should have seen the query in the pg_log as a slow
query, I guess ?
Regards,
>
> --
> Alvaro Herrera
> http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
> PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
>
--
JC
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu n'gah Bill R'lyeh Wgah'nagl fhtagn!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alban Hertroys | 2009-10-28 10:57:59 | Re: Slow running query with views...how to increase efficiency? with index? |
Previous Message | Sam Mason | 2009-10-28 10:41:30 | Re: Procedure for feature requests? |