Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A56DD9F9B9B for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:25:23 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16999-10 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:25:19 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from mail1.livedatagroup.com (mail1.livedatagroup.com [216.154.205.166]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5302B9F9A4E for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:25:20 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail1.livedatagroup.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56840B5C40; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:25:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.livedatagroup.com ([192.168.3.224]) by localhost (mail1.livedatagroup.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25101-08; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:25:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.2.134] (adsl-074-228-048-194.sip.bct.bellsouth.net [74.228.48.194]) by mail1.livedatagroup.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96B2F44197; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:25:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <46D840EC.1060302@livedatagroup.com> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:25:16 -0400 From: Pallav Kalva User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alvaro Herrera CC: Tom Lane , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: 8.2 Autovacuum BUG ? References: <46D83427.60001@livedatagroup.com> <25038.1188574775@sss.pgh.pa.us> <46D83C50.3040409@livedatagroup.com> <20070831161158.GD8046@alvh.no-ip.org> In-Reply-To: <20070831161158.GD8046@alvh.no-ip.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at livedatagroup.com X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200708/400 X-Sequence-Number: 26530 Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Pallav Kalva wrote: > >> Tom Lane wrote: >> > > >>> Probably represents freezing of old tuples, which is a WAL-logged >>> operation as of 8.2. Is it likely that the data is 200M transactions >>> old? >>> >>> >> If nothing changed on these tables how can it freeze old tuples ? >> Does it mean that once it reaches 200M transactions it will do the same >> thing all over again ? >> > > No -- once tuples are frozen, they don't need freezing again (unless > they are modified by UPDATE or DELETE). > > >> If I am doing just SELECTS on these tables ? how can there be any >> transactions ? or SELECTS considered transactions too ? >> > > Selects are transactions too. They just don't modify data. > > Can you please correct me if I am wrong, I want to understand how this works. Based on what you said, it will run autovacuum again when it passes 200M transactions, as SELECTS are transactions too and are going on these tables. But the next time when it runs autovacuum, it shouldnt freeze the tuples again as they are already frozen and wont generate lot of archive logs ? Or is this because of it ran autovacuum for the first time on this db ? just the first time it does this process ?