Don Seiler <d...@seiler.us> writes:
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:40 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at>
> wrote:
>> Perhaps autovacuum never handled "template0" because it concluded (rightly)
>> that it has to deal with "foo_db" first.
> Yes this DB had a table in it that had been autovacuuming since Feb 2. It's
> age is half way to wraparound so I'm in the middle of a manual VACUUM
> FREEZE on it. I'd be interested in knowing if that prevents template0 from
> autovacuuming itself. There are no other autovacuum jobs running.
I think we did put in a change that would prevent any one database from
completely consuming autovacuum's attention, even in wraparound-hazard
situations. Don't recall when.
Do you have an idea why autovac was failing to clear the issue on that one
problem table, though?
regards, tom lane
