> On 16/01/2023 13:48 CET Fred Habash <fmhabash@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This is a puzzle I have not been able to crack yet.
>
> We have a single-page table with 28 rows that is purely read-only. There isn't
> a way in postgres to make a table RO, but I say this with confidence because
> pg_stat_user_tables has always showed 0 updates/deletes/inserts.
>
> Furthermore, the schema app developers know, for certain, this table does not
> get changed at all.
Only way to ensure that is to have database users other than the table owners
or superusers connect from your app. Then you can GRANT the absolute necessary
privileges like SELECT for read-only access.
> We installed scripts that run every few minutes that do a 'select *' and over
> a period of days, we have not seen a change.
>
> We disabled autovacuum on this table '{autovacuum_enabled=false}'. But,
> despite the fact that this table is read-only (by design) and autovac id is
> disabled, it got autovac'd twice in less than 10 days and on both occasions,
> pg_stat_activity showed the worker with 'to prevent wraparound'. This explains
> why autovac did not honor the disabled status.
>
> But why is this table autovac'd at all?
Wraparound protection is always performed even if autovacuum is disabled:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/routine-vacuuming.html#VACUUM-FOR-WRAPAROUND
> I have a hypothesis, but I need it validated and may be indicate if it is
> scientifically plausible. It goes like this ...
>
> 1. Application initiates a T1 transaction
> 2. App. reads multiple tables to get product metadata and this small table is
> one of them.
> 3. At some point, app. locks a row on one of the tables (not the small one).
> 4. Client app. keeps session 'idle in transaction' while it refreshes a
> webpage to render the data.
> 4. Once the client app verifies the web app has rendered the data correctly,
> it comes back to the database to finish the transaction.
>
> So, even if the small table is never changed, it is part of a transaction to
> be queried. Will this use-case cause the table to qualify for an aggressive
> autovac to prevent wraparound.
>
> If not, why else is a table with zero DML changes ever gets autovac'd?
--
Erik
