Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 13:33:58 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Greg Spiegelberg <gspiegelberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	=?utf-8?B?T25kxZllaiBTdsSbdGzDrWs=?= <osvetlik@flexibee.eu>,
	"[ADMIN]" <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Autovacuum of pg_database
Message-ID: <20160506163358.GA216510@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEtnbpWSniYXw_3goUMGKreEhKoGTBvC84tkyKzeRyGP8Mq+Zw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org

Hi Greg,

Greg Spiegelberg wrote:

> We were bit a couple months ago by a very similar issue where autovacuum
> ignored pg_type.  A manual vacuum fixed it but since that table is abused
> by every client using libpq which is darn near everything I suspect it went
> bad in a hurry.

Hmm.  The current report is about shared catalogs (pg_shdepend and
pg_database were reported as problematic) which pg_type is not, so I
doubt that this bugfix will have any impact in a problem vacuuming
pg_type.

I'm interested in seeing a more detailed report from you about the
pg_type vacuuming failure.

> Question is, will this patch be backported to 9.3?

Yes, in my opinion we would backpatch it, back to 9.1 even.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin