From: | "John Lister" <john(dot)lister-ps(at)kickstone(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Should autovacuum do a database wide vacuum near transaction limit? |
Date: | 2011-01-22 09:29:18 |
Message-ID: | CFDF7ED35F814573BDD5658496D53F33@squarepi.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
> "John Lister"<john(dot)lister-ps(at)kickstone(dot)com> writes:
>> On another bizarre note, A database wide vacuum has just finished, but
>> I'm
>> still getting the warnings:
>> GMT WARNING: database "backend" must be vacuumed within 10205310
>> transactions
> Did you do that vacuum as a superuser?
Thanks for your help, but I managed to work it out using an answer you gave
in another thread. I looked at which tables had a frozen xid equal to the
database value and found that there were 7 temporary tables with numbers
equal or very close to it. I couldn't find a way to determine which process
created those tables ( - is this possible?) and therefore see how long it
had been running, etc
Instead I tried to vacuum them, but this didn't make any difference (or
indeed do anything), so in the end I deleted the tables manually instead,
which instantly reset the transaction count back to the 1billion mark. I
now need to find out which process probably died due to its temp tables
disappearing, again they appeared odd - single alphabetical names - which I
wasn't expecting...
Was this expected behaviour with temporary tables?
Cheers
John
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2011-01-22 09:36:25 | Re: Should autovacuum do a database wide vacuum near transaction limit? |
Previous Message | John Lister | 2011-01-22 09:27:32 | Re: Should autovacuum do a database wide vacuum near transaction limit? |