Re: Should autovacuum do a database wide vacuum near transaction limit?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 21/01/2011 23:40, Tom Lane wrote:
"John Lister"<john.lister-ps@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  writes:
On another bizarre note, A database wide vacuum has just finished, but I'm
still getting the warnings:
GMT WARNING:  database "backend" must be vacuumed within 10205310
transactions
Did you do that vacuum as a superuser?
Thanks for your help, but I managed to work it out using an answer you gave in another thread. I looked at which tables had a frozen xid equal to the database value and found that there were 7 temporary tables with numbers equal or very close to it. I couldn't find a way to determine which process created those tables ( - is this possible?) and therefore see how long it had been running, etc

Instead I tried to vacuum them, but this didn't make any difference (or indeed do anything), so in the end I deleted the tables manually instead, which instantly reset the transaction count back to the 1billion mark. I now need to find out which process probably died due to its temp tables disappearing, again they appeared odd - single alphabetical names - which I wasn't expecting...

Was this expected behaviour with temporary tables?

Cheers
John

--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin


[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux