Don Seiler <don@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:40 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@xxxxxxxxxxx> > 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. Do you have an idea why autovac was failing to clear the issue on that one problem table, though? regards, tom lane
