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

> "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