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
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 ( .. ); |