| From: | Don Seiler <don(at)seiler(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(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 02:11:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAHJZqBAXw_JR+mPG7CJ8t-Ya7R2V4zzRQ6Mo-Jki_Xu-WLJn6g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 8:51 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Do you have an idea why autovac was failing to clear the issue on that one
> problem table, though?
>
Before I intervened, the maintenance_work_mem was only 16MB (they had
encoded and carried over PG 8 defaults in the chef recipe). I bumped it to
512MB before kicking off my freezeThat's the big factor I can think of.
This is a huge table obviously as well. By the time it caught my attention
there were 850M dead tuples to be cleaned up. My VACUUM FREEZE has been
running just just about 5 days and is probably half way done. We shouldn't
be at risk of hitting wraparound though (only 52% there).
Don.
--
Don Seiler
www.seiler.us
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2020-05-19 02:20:27 | Re: template0 needing vacuum freeze? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-05-19 01:51:11 | Re: template0 needing vacuum freeze? |