From: | Murthy Nunna <mnunna(at)fnal(dot)gov> |
---|---|
To: | "depesz(at)depesz(dot)com" <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: Vacuumdb on a table |
Date: | 2023-10-19 17:08:52 |
Message-ID: | DM8PR09MB6677862AC7E153C7F650935DB8D4A@DM8PR09MB6677.namprd09.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Thanks.
I retried with -F. That actually worked and lowered the relfrozenxid of the table.
1) I am wondering if -F option interferes with application (table lock, row lock etc).
2) It says "aggressively vacuuming "<table>". Do you always see this with -F option? Is it harmless in terms of locking select/insert/update/delete statements from application?
vacuumdb -v -d <database> -t <table> -F
vacuumdb: vacuuming database "<database>"
INFO: aggressively vacuuming "<table>"
INFO: launched 1 parallel vacuum worker for index cleanup (planned: 1)
INFO: table "<table>": found 0 removable, 172218350 nonremovable row versions in 6332166 out of 6332166 pages
DETAIL: 0 dead row versions cannot be removed yet, oldest xmin: 1465648214
Skipped 0 pages due to buffer pins, 0 frozen pages.
CPU: user: 134.15 s, system: 199.88 s, elapsed: 1856.67 s.
INFO: aggressively vacuuming "pg_toast.pg_toast_<toastref>"
INFO: table "pg_toast_<toastref>": found 0 removable, 0 nonremovable row versions in 0 out of 0 pages
DETAIL: 0 dead row versions cannot be removed yet, oldest xmin: 1465693324
Skipped 0 pages due to buffer pins, 0 frozen pages.
CPU: user: 0.00 s, system: 0.00 s, elapsed: 0.00 s.
Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: depesz(at)depesz(dot)com <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 3:27 AM
To: Murthy Nunna <mnunna(at)fnal(dot)gov>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Vacuumdb on a table
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 08:05:53PM +0000, Murthy Nunna wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The first table in the following query resulted in age(c.relfrozenxid)
> = 148795396. But when I manually run vacuumdb command (vacuumdb -d db1
> -t tab1) on that table it is not lowering the relfrozenxid. There is
> no indication in the pglog that vacuumdb failed.
Retry with vacuumdb -F
Best regards,
depesz
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-10-19 17:30:14 | Re: Binaries for EOL version? |
Previous Message | Ron | 2023-10-19 17:03:18 | Re: Binaries for EOL version? |