Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0057B1337B51
	for <pgsql-admin-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 22 Jan 2011 06:02:29 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 00879-03 for
	<pgsql-admin-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:02:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:15:45.849926 by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.kickstone.com (smtp.kickstone.co.uk [87.194.183.70])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91AC31337B47
	for <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 06:02:21 -0400 (AST)
Received: from 87-194-183-69.dsl.cnl.uk.net ([87.194.183.69]:1398
 helo=MADRAS2)
	by mail.kickstone.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <accounts@pricegoblin.co.uk>)
	id 1Pga3F-0002mz-H1; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 09:46:33 +0000
Message-ID: <E1EDB59A3C4E4ACE915899E5A5FC3B36@squarepi.com>
From: "PriceGoblin Accounts" <accounts@pricegoblin.co.uk>
To: "Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	<pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
References: 
 <927BF3A3F54247FF8C63219A00CE98B5@squarepi.com><1427.1295651046@sss.pgh.pa.us><A83ED098FF4346FFBA6AB8A2AA46A218@squarepi.com><2081.1295653238@sss.pgh.pa.us><4D3AA304.7070506@kickstone.com>
	<AANLkTik++ug_RYscONWu8xfBHR9438YyryvvbMcs0nS0@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Should autovacuum do a database wide vacuum near transaction
	limit?
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 09:46:33 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.061 tagged_above=-10 required=5
	tests=BAYES_05=-0.5, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.439
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201101/152
X-Sequence-Number: 36592

>> 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