>> 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?
The first thing I checked was for open transactions, but alas there were
none. I suspect the process had been
open a long time without creating any transactions, but don't know which
process it was at this point, the connection
was owned by my colleague so need to check with him or look for dead
In response to
pgsql-admin by date
|Next:||From: John Lister||Date: 2011-01-22 12:13:25|
|Subject: Re: Should autovacuum do a database wide vacuum near transaction limit?|
|Previous:||From: Scott Marlowe||Date: 2011-01-22 09:36:25|
|Subject: Re: Should autovacuum do a database wide vacuum near