From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Don Seiler <don(at)seiler(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 02:20:27 |
Message-ID: | e7c06d4c-e1f7-c91e-d581-5c0cfcc4e810@aklaver.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 5/18/20 6:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Don Seiler <don(at)seiler(dot)us> writes:
>> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:40 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
>> wrote:
>>> Perhaps autovacuum never handled "template0" because it concluded (rightly)
>>> that it has to deal with "foo_db" first.
>
>> Yes this DB had a table in it that had been autovacuuming since Feb 2. It's
>> age is half way to wraparound so I'm in the middle of a manual VACUUM
>> FREEZE on it. I'd be interested in knowing if that prevents template0 from
>> autovacuuming itself. There are no other autovacuum jobs running.
>
> I think we did put in a change that would prevent any one database from
> completely consuming autovacuum's attention, even in wraparound-hazard
> situations. Don't recall when.
This?:
which I believe is only for 12 and is in the 12.3 release.
>
> Do you have an idea why autovac was failing to clear the issue on that one
> problem table, though?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2020-05-19 06:05:00 | Re: Unique index on hash of jsonb value - correct solution? |
Previous Message | Don Seiler | 2020-05-19 02:11:03 | Re: template0 needing vacuum freeze? |