Well, for one we did introduce a TX leak which was preventing autovac from running. I guess that was _the_ issue. I have since fixed it and an now testing.... looks much better, nothing concerning.... (fingers crossed until morning :)). debug logs are full of vac/anal of the tables... so, for now I am back on track moving forward... Now that auto vac is actually running, the box is feeling slightly more sluggish. BTW - As soon as we deliver to QA, I will post the test case for the memory leak I was seeing the other day. (I have not forgotten, I am just swamped) Thanks for the help all. Much appreciated. Cheers. On Wednesday 21 June 2006 19:11, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 04:41:45PM -0300, jody brownell wrote: > > BTW, in production with a similar load - autovacuum with default out of the box > > settings seems to work quite well.... > > > > I double checked this earlier today. > > So what's different between production and the machine with the problem? > > The issue with autovac is that it will only vacuum one table at a time, > so if it's off vacuuming some other table for a long period of time it > won't be touching this table, which will be a problem. Now, if that's > actually what's happening...
