From: | 양주희 <1986comatose(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | depesz(at)depesz(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #19014: Automatic aggressive VACUUM on template0 and template1 pg_shdepend runs every minute |
Date: | 2025-08-11 09:09:09 |
Message-ID: | CA+2eXpaYSVx9UGu6e-Yp53bN8hr-brTLmMYCrx5FO0avbLk_rw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hello, Thank you for your help. I ran the query you suggested: select now()
- xact_start from pg_stat_activity order by xact_start asc nulls last limit
1 The result was 00:00:00.96726, which suggests there are no long-running
transactions. Regarding Tom Lane's suggestion, our application does
frequently create temporary tables. This might be a factor contributing to
the constant vacuuming of pg_shdepend. I am ready to provide more
information if you need it to help reproduce the issue. Thank you
2025년 8월 8일 (금) 오전 6:33, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>님이 작성:
> hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 07:47:58AM +0000, PG Bug reporting form wrote:
> >> We only actively use the ecount database, yet our logs show that an
> >> automatic “aggressive” VACUUM is repeatedly running on
> >> template0.pg_catalog.pg_shdepend and template1.pg_catalog.pg_shdepend at
> >> roughly one-minute intervals. Since the template databases aren’t used
> for
> >> normal operations, these vacuums seem unnecessary and are consuming
> system
> >> resources. We believe this behavior is a bug.
>
> > I bet you have some long transaction somewhere, and this table is shared
> > (same table visible in all databases).
>
> Another theory, again remembering this is a shared catalog, is that
> there is enough update traffic on pg_shdepend to justify constant
> vacuuming. That could be plausible if there's a lot of object
> creation and deletion going on (even just temporary tables, I think).
>
> Anyway, I don't see any such behavior here after setting
> log_autovacuum_min_duration = 0. We're going to need more
> information to reproduce the problem.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-08-11 10:55:20 | Re: Lock timeouts and unusual spikes in replication lag with logical parallel transaction streaming |
Previous Message | Zane Duffield | 2025-08-11 06:20:56 | Lock timeouts and unusual spikes in replication lag with logical parallel transaction streaming |