On 11/01/2012 09:18 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Did you bulk load this data (possibly through restoring pg_dump output)? If so, and you have not explicitly run VACUUM FREEZE afterward, the vacuum noticed that it was time to freeze all of these tuples.
Ok, that might explain it, then. We did in fact just upgrade from 8.2 to 9.1 about 2 weeks ago. And no, I didn't do a VACUUM FREEZE, just a VACUUM ANALYZE to make sure stats were ready. I'm still a little uncertain what the tangible difference is between a FREEZE and a regular VACUUM. I get that it sets freeze_min_age to 0, but why does that even matter? Is 50M out of 2B not good enough? Every VACUUM knocks the counter back to the minimum, so I guess I don't get the justification for magically forcing the minimum to be lower.
Of course, all that page marking would definitely produce a butt-ton of transaction logs. So at least that makes sense. :)
Thanks, Keven!
You haven't mentioned anything that should be taken as evidence of corruption or any unusual behavior on the part of PostgreSQL.
No, but I was a little freaked out by the unexplained activity. -- Shaun Thomas OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604 312-444-8534 sthomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ______________________________________________ See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
