Shaun Thomas <sthomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The first line also seems extremely misleading. a manually > launched vacuum is not an autovacuum, so why is it complaining > about an autovacuum? Shouldn't the PID doing the autovacuum emit > the log message? This all seems a little sketchy. The table truncation in autovacuum had severe problems in some conditions which were causing production down time. The fix accidentally introduced some messages which are confusing, and caused the statistics from autovacuum to fail to be generated more often than had previously been the case. These problems should be fixed in the next minor release. Until then, if you have a workload which triggers these issues, the workaround is to schedule ANALYZE jobs. Where things are now running faster, it's hard to say how much is from missing the analyze step, how much is due to caching issues, and how much is actual gain from the fixes for the original problems. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
