Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Bruce McAlister <bruce(dot)mcalister(at)blueface(dot)ie>
Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question
Date: 2007-06-28 14:00:40
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
Bruce McAlister wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > All the values here look OK, except one:
> > 
> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 07:50:36AM +0100, Bruce McAlister wrote:
> >> blueface-crm=# select oid, relfrozenxid from pg_class where relkind in
> >> ('r', 't');
> >>    oid   | relfrozenxid
> >> ---------+--------------
> >>  2570051 |   2947120794
> > 
> > Whatever this table is, the freeze XID isn't getting updated for some
> > reason...


> This looks like a temporary relation,
> temp4295                   |   2947120794
> Is there a way we can manually force these to update?

No.  Only the session that created the temp table can vacuum it.
Autovacuum skips temp tables.  I guess the only thing you can do here is
close that session.

I'm thinking that maybe should make vac_update_datfrozenxid ignore temp
tables.  But this doesn't really work, because if we were to truncate
pg_clog there would be tuples on the temp table marked with XIDs that
are nowhere to be found.  Maybe we could make some noise about it

This is a problem only in recent releases (8.2) because we started
allowing the max freeze age be configurable.

Alvaro Herrera                      
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-06-28 14:25:54
Subject: Re: Doc update for pg_start_backup
Previous:From: Greg SmithDate: 2007-06-28 12:55:50
Subject: Re: Bgwriter LRU cleaning: we've been going at this all wrong

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-06-28 14:08:06
Subject: Re: Execution variability
Previous:From: Masaru SugawaraDate: 2007-06-28 13:25:00
Subject: Re: Possible bug (or I don't understand how foreign keys should work with partitions)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group