From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PGSQL Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: VACUUM touching file but not updating relation |
Date: | 2011-11-10 23:07:10 |
Message-ID: | CAA-aLv4vVHLMLWOqio9hUUBdL230aNg=+ny8OZAtMTTzJjY0Rw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 14 October 2011 12:12, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just noticed that the VACUUM process touches a lot of relations
> (affects mtime) but for one file I looked at, it didn't change. This
> doesn't always happen, and many relations aren't touched at all.
>
> I had the following relation:
>
> -rw------- 1 thom staff 40960 13 Oct 16:06 11946
>
> Ran MD5 over the file:
>
> MD5 (11946) = d6626f930f1fb6d77c3907d3279fe693
>
> Then VACUUM ANALYSE'd all databases in full.
>
> This relation was supposedly affected:
>
> -rw------- 1 thom staff 40960 14 Oct 11:27 11946
>
> But then I ran MD5 back over it:
>
> MD5 (11946) = d6626f930f1fb6d77c3907d3279fe693
>
> This is the same as before. What is it doing? Does this happen
> often? And I can't find out what this particular OID relates to
> either.
>
> I'm using 9.2devel btw.
Does anyone know what happened here? I'm just wondering if there's
some action being performed on the file which can be avoided. Of
course I haven't determined how often this happens.
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bborie Park | 2011-11-11 00:06:03 | Passing NULL to a function called with OidFunctionCall3 |
Previous Message | Raghavendra | 2011-11-10 23:00:09 | Re: "idle in transaction" entry in pg_logs |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-10 23:12:13 | Re: proposal: psql concise mode |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-10 22:48:06 | Re: LOCK_DEBUG is busted |