| From: | Igor Neyman <ineyman(at)perceptron(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Isabella Ghiurea <isabella(dot)ghiurea(at)nrc-cnrc(dot)gc(dot)ca>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: PG 9.5 2 tables same DDL with diff size |
| Date: | 2018-01-10 16:10:13 |
| Message-ID: | BL2PR17MB0897B3ACF3D54FA3C35C9029DA110@BL2PR17MB0897.namprd17.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
-----Original Message-----
From: Isabella Ghiurea [mailto:isabella(dot)ghiurea(at)nrc-cnrc(dot)gc(dot)ca]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 10:48 AM
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: RE: PG 9.5 2 tables same DDL with diff size
Attention: This email was sent from someone outside of Perceptron. Always exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links from unknown senders or when receiving unexpected emails.
I run full vacuum and reindex on largest table (50GB) while there was no server activities so I assume no transaction was holding a lock on table since the full vacuum was able to run, anything where I should consider looking ?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes, in pg_stat_activity look for idle transactions that started long time ago.
To prevent vacuum from doing its job they don't need to lock the table, they could just prevent from cleaning "old" row versions.
Regards,
Igor Neyman
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | ghiureai | 2018-01-10 18:49:41 | Re: PG 9.5 2 tables same DDL with diff size |
| Previous Message | Isabella Ghiurea | 2018-01-10 15:48:16 | RE: PG 9.5 2 tables same DDL with diff size |