| From: | Vivek Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pgsql performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: postgresql transaction id monitoring with nagios |
| Date: | 2006-05-02 19:12:37 |
| Message-ID: | A375C6D5-B7CF-484D-A24A-053462B1FC6D@khera.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On May 2, 2006, at 3:03 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Something seems wrong... I just ran your script against my
>> development database server which is vacuumed daily and it said I was
>> 53% of the way to 2B. Seemed strange to me, so I re-ran "vacuum -a -
>> z" to vacuum all databases (as superuser), reran the script and got
>> the same answer.
>
> That's right, because a database's age is only decremented in
> database-wide vacuums. (Wow, who wouldn't want a person-wide
> vacuum if
> it did the same thing ...)
and what exactly is "vacuumdb -a -z" doing besides a database wide
vacuum?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Liberman | 2006-05-02 19:28:18 | Re: Why is plan (and performance) different on partitioned table? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-05-02 19:07:41 | Re: postgresql transaction id monitoring with nagios |