From: John Lister <john.lister-ps@kickstone.com>
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Should autovacuum do a database wide vacuum near transaction limit?
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 12:13:25 -0000
Message-ID: <97DC79D65AF14ABCB98B26C2F8BA5755@squarepi.com> (raw)
Apologies resending to the list as used wrong account...
>> Was this expected behaviour with temporary tables?
>It's more expected behavior when you have long running transactions.
>I haven't seen it caused by temp tables. Was the parent process in a
>really long transaction or just open a long time without one?
The first thing I checked was for open transactions, but alas there were
none. I suspect the process had been open a long time without creating any
transactions, but don't know which process it was at this point, the
connection was owned by my colleague so need to check with him or look for
dead applications...
John
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: john.lister-ps@kickstone.com
Subject: Re: Should autovacuum do a database wide vacuum near transaction limit?
In-Reply-To: <97DC79D65AF14ABCB98B26C2F8BA5755@squarepi.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox