Re: template0 needing vacuum freeze?
От | Adrian Klaver |
---|---|
Тема | Re: template0 needing vacuum freeze? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | e7c06d4c-e1f7-c91e-d581-5c0cfcc4e810@aklaver.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: template0 needing vacuum freeze? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On 5/18/20 6:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Don Seiler <don@seiler.us> writes: >> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:40 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> >> wrote: >>> Perhaps autovacuum never handled "template0" because it concluded (rightly) >>> that it has to deal with "foo_db" first. > >> Yes this DB had a table in it that had been autovacuuming since Feb 2. It's >> age is half way to wraparound so I'm in the middle of a manual VACUUM >> FREEZE on it. I'd be interested in knowing if that prevents template0 from >> autovacuuming itself. There are no other autovacuum jobs running. > > I think we did put in a change that would prevent any one database from > completely consuming autovacuum's attention, even in wraparound-hazard > situations. Don't recall when. This?: https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=dd9ac7d5d80608a640bb82cffb6a805ce84cf112 which I believe is only for 12 and is in the 12.3 release. > > Do you have an idea why autovac was failing to clear the issue on that one > problem table, though? > > regards, tom lane > > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: