| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Uwe Bartels <uwe(dot)bartels(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: blocking automatic vacuum |
| Date: | 2010-06-22 16:57:36 |
| Message-ID: | 3519.1277225856@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Uwe Bartels <uwe(dot)bartels(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> i'm pretty sure there is no repetitive ddl happen on this or any other
> table. i checked this with the developers.
Well, *something* was blocking that RowExclusiveLock request, and for
sure it wasn't autovacuum. There has to be something else going on.
> but if i had an anti-wraparound vacuum, then i should see warnings like
> these in the log. am i right? I don't have any warnings that day.
> WARNING: database "mydb" must be vacuumed within 177009986 transactions
> HINT: To avoid a database shutdown, execute a database-wide VACUUM in "mydb".
Uh, no. Anti-wraparound vacuums are performed long before you would get
to the point of seeing any actual warnings.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-22 17:10:16 | Re: parallel option in pg_restore |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-06-22 16:48:12 | Re: Postgresql 9.0b2 : pg_upgrade not passing username to pgdumpall ? |