Re: Should autovacuum do a database wide vacuum near transaction limit?

On 21/01/2011 23:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> "John Lister"<john(dot)lister-ps(at)kickstone(dot)com> writes:
>> On another bizarre note, A database wide vacuum has just finished, but I'm
>> still getting the warnings:
>> GMT WARNING: database "backend" must be vacuumed within 10205310
>> transactions
> Did you do that vacuum as a superuser?
Thanks for your help, but I managed to work it out using an answer you
gave in another thread. I looked at which tables had a frozen xid equal
to the database value and found that there were 7 temporary tables with
numbers equal or very close to it. I couldn't find a way to determine
which process created those tables ( - is this possible?) and therefore
see how long it had been running, etc

Instead I tried to vacuum them, but this didn't make any difference (or
indeed do anything), so in the end I deleted the tables manually
instead, which instantly reset the transaction count back to the
1billion mark. I now need to find out which process probably died due
to its temp tables disappearing, again they appeared odd - single
alphabetical names - which I wasn't expecting...

Was this expected behaviour with temporary tables?

Cheers
John