X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA37B9FB25D for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:28:35 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30113-09 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:28:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from globalrelay.com (mail1.globalrelay.com [216.18.71.77]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7218A9FA4D9 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:28:17 -0300 (ADT) X-Virus-Scanned: Scanned by GRC-AntiVirus Gateway X-GR-Acctd: YES Received: from [67.90.96.2] (HELO DaveEMachine) by globalrelay.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.3) with ESMTP id 101419003; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:28:16 -0700 From: "Dave Dutcher" To: "'Marinos Yannikos'" , Subject: Re: VACUUM FULL needed sometimes to prevent transaction ID wraparound? Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:28:15 -0500 Message-ID: <023601c6c621$1de0f3e0$8300a8c0@tridecap.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <44EB48A9.7030704@geizhals.at> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.816 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL, SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Level: *** X-Archive-Number: 200608/355 X-Sequence-Number: 20540 I would guess that you are not running vacuumdb as a user with permission to vacuum the postgres or template1 databases. Try telling vacuumdb to log in as postgres or whatever your superuser account is called. > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of > Marinos Yannikos > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 1:11 PM > To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org > Subject: [PERFORM] VACUUM FULL needed sometimes to prevent > transaction ID wraparound? > > > Hello, > > we're looking into the reason why we are getting warnings about > transaction ID wraparound despite a daily "vaccumdb -qaz". Someone is > claiming that VACUUM without FULL cannot reassign XIDs properly when > max_fsm_pages was set too low (it says so here too, but this > is rather > old: > http://www.varlena.com/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html#maxfsmp). Is > this true, or do we have a different issue here? We're using > 8.1.3 with > a database generated on 8.1.3 (i.e. not migrated from 7.x or anything > like that). > > Thanks, > Marinos > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings >