From: | Vineet Naik <naikvin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Autovacuum or manual vacuum to recover from XID wraparound? |
Date: | 2021-06-11 15:05:20 |
Message-ID: | CADmbCiPrxF5rfzDkKzuvoSi-hMfjsRjmzqkPtp+cA=5PWip_TQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 7:55 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> If you can afford to wait, it'd be interesting to see what happens.
It's been running for a few days now and heap_blks_vacuumed /
heal_blks_total is around 74% at present. If it continues at the
current rate, we will most probably let it complete. In any case, we
will keep it running over the weekend at least.
> Looking at the code, it looks to me like what's probably happening is
> that those errors are coming from auto-analyze attempting to update
> pg_statistic. That should not, however, prevent auto-vacuum from
> cleaning things up and advancing the transaction threshold limit,
> because the catalog updates that are needed for that are nontransactional
> and so don't need to consume XIDs.
>
> I wonder whether we should disable auto-analyze once we get into
> vacuum-for-wraparound mode. But in any case, it'd be useful to
> see whether there's an actual bug in there.
>
> It'd also be useful to know exactly which PG version you are running.
PG version 9.6.22. Missed mentioning it earlier, sorry about that.
>
> regards, tom lane
Thanks,
Vineet
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nikhil Shetty | 2021-06-11 17:58:23 | vacuumdb idle processes |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-11 14:25:00 | Re: Autovacuum or manual vacuum to recover from XID wraparound? |