Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0DD26502A5
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:46:02 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 66998-06-2
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:45:55 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from fort-mx02.den.api.local (unknown [66.35.32.228])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A65636502AD
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:45:46 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from 72-42-100-203.dhcp.leehcotccr01.WisperTel.net
	(jgc.vpn.api.local [192.168.11.52] (may be forged))
	by fort-mx02.den.api.local (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m7QGjWd0014630;
	Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:45:32 -0600
Message-ID: <48B4332B.4050207@absolute-performance.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:45:31 -0600
From: Jerry Champlin <jchamplin@absolute-performance.com>
Organization: Absolute Performance Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: depesz@depesz.com
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@commandprompt.com>
Subject: Re: Autovacuum does not stay turned off
References: <48B420F4.5020406@absolute-performance.com>
	<20080826161427.GA25880@depesz.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080826161427.GA25880@depesz.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------060501030002060202020304"
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.101 tagged_above=0 required=5
	tests=HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200808/332
X-Sequence-Number: 31213

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060501030002060202020304
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This makes sense.  What queries can I run to see how close to the limit 
we are?  We need to determine if we should stop the process which 
updates and inserts into this table until after the critical time this 
afternoon when we can perform the required maintenance on this table.

hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 09:27:48AM -0600, Jerry Champlin wrote:
>   
>> Does anyone know what will cause this bahavior for autovacuum?
>>     
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/runtime-config-autovacuum.html
> -> autovacuum_freeze_max_age
>
> depesz
>
>   
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 09:27:48AM -0600, Jerry Champlin wrote:
>   
>> Does anyone know what will cause this bahavior for autovacuum?
>>     
>
> You're probably approaching the wraparound limit in some database.  
>
> If you think you can't afford the overhead when users are accessing
> the system, when are you vacuuming?
>
> A
>
>   
We are changing the table structure tonight.  These two tables are very 
highly updated.  The goal is to use autovacuum but not have it take 10 
days to run on a 13MM record table.

Thanks

-Jerry

--------------060501030002060202020304
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
This makes sense.  What queries can I run to see how close to the limit
we are?  We need to determine if we should stop the process which
updates and inserts into this table until after the critical time this
afternoon when we can perform the required maintenance on this table.<br>
<br>
hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20080826161427.GA25880@depesz.com" type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 09:27:48AM -0600, Jerry Champlin wrote:
  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">Does anyone know what will cause this bahavior for autovacuum?
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/runtime-config-autovacuum.html">http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/runtime-config-autovacuum.html</a>
-&gt; autovacuum_freeze_max_age

depesz

  </pre>
</blockquote>
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20080826162144.GX10936@commandprompt.com"
 type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 09:27:48AM -0600, Jerry Champlin wrote:
  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">Does anyone know what will cause this bahavior for autovacuum?
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
You're probably approaching the wraparound limit in some database.  

If you think you can't afford the overhead when users are accessing
the system, when are you vacuuming?

A

  </pre>
</blockquote>
We are changing the table structure tonight.  These two tables are very
highly updated.  The goal is to use autovacuum but not have it take 10
days to run on a 13MM record table.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
-Jerry<br>
</body>
</html>

--------------060501030002060202020304--