| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | John Lister <john(dot)lister(at)kickstone(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, John Lister <john(dot)lister-ps(at)kickstone(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Should autovacuum do a database wide vacuum near transaction limit? |
| Date: | 2011-01-22 09:36:25 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTik++ug_RYscONWu8xfBHR9438YyryvvbMcs0nS0@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 2:27 AM, John Lister <john(dot)lister(at)kickstone(dot)com> wrote:
> 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?
It's more expected behavior when you have long running transactions.
I haven't seen it caused by temp tables. Was the parent process in a
really long transaction or just open a long time without one?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PriceGoblin Accounts | 2011-01-22 09:46:33 | Re: Should autovacuum do a database wide vacuum near transaction limit? |
| Previous Message | John Lister | 2011-01-22 09:29:18 | Re: Should autovacuum do a database wide vacuum near transaction limit? |