Re: vac truncation scan problems

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: vac truncation scan problems
Date: 2015-04-01 05:07:06
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQY2vnRNA60KuDpkrrtTL6W-U2AhC27pHACwGCjNNx_iw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:26 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Did it tell you why? If it surrendered the lock to a competing process,
> it should report that as previous INFO messages. If it doesn't give one of
> those, then it probably just thinks there are some tuples it can't remove
> yet somewhere. What did it give earlier up in the verbose output, for the
> number of removed and nonremovable tuples?
>

I just had an extra look at that, and I just got trapped a0f5954a that
bumped max_wal_size from 128GB to 1GB.. Sorry for the noise.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Gierth 2015-04-01 06:25:26 Re: Exposing PG_VERSION_NUM in pg_config
Previous Message Noah Misch 2015-04-01 04:45:57 Re: Doubt about AccessExclusiveLock in ALTER TABLE .. SET ( .. );