Re: Unexplained Major Vacuum Archive Activity During Vacuum
От | Shaun Thomas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Unexplained Major Vacuum Archive Activity During Vacuum |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 50928738.4020505@optionshouse.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Unexplained Major Vacuum Archive Activity During Vacuum ("Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn@mail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On 11/01/2012 09:18 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Did you bulk load this data (possibly through restoring pg_dump > output)? If so, and you have not explicitly run VACUUM FREEZE > afterward, the vacuum noticed that it was time to freeze all of these > tuples. Ok, that might explain it, then. We did in fact just upgrade from 8.2 to 9.1 about 2 weeks ago. And no, I didn't do a VACUUM FREEZE, just a VACUUM ANALYZE to make sure stats were ready. I'm still a little uncertain what the tangible difference is between a FREEZE and a regular VACUUM. I get that it sets freeze_min_age to 0, but why does that even matter? Is 50M out of 2B not good enough? Every VACUUM knocks the counter back to the minimum, so I guess I don't get the justification for magically forcing the minimum to be lower. Of course, all that page marking would definitely produce a butt-ton of transaction logs. So at least that makes sense. :) Thanks, Keven! > You haven't mentioned anything that should be taken as evidence of > corruption or any unusual behavior on the part of PostgreSQL. No, but I was a little freaked out by the unexplained activity. -- Shaun Thomas OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604 312-444-8534 sthomas@optionshouse.com ______________________________________________ See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: