One more thing I just tried: create table table_schema.table_name_new (like table_schema.table_name); insert into table_schema.table_name_new select * from table_schema.table_ name;
The new tables shows the same amount of wasted bytes and pages as the old. So I think based on that I'm going to throw out any notion of updates or deletes as cause for bloat on this particular table. -G On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Gregory Haase <haa...@onefreevoice.com>wrote: > So, between yesterday and today we actually failed over to our hot-standby > instance and the issue hasn't changed. I don't think you can have a pending > transaction across streaming replication. > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:49 PM, John R Pierce <pie...@hogranch.com>wrote: > >> On 10/29/2013 12:41 PM, Gregory Haase wrote: >> >> db_name=# VACUUM FULL VERBOSE table_schema.table_name; >> INFO: vacuuming "table_schema.table_name" >> INFO: "table_name": found 2 removable, 29663 nonremovable row versions >> in 1754 pages >> DETAIL: 0 dead row versions cannot be removed yet. >> CPU 0.07s/0.10u sec elapsed 0.30 sec. >> >> >> is there an old transaction pending? that 'masks' vacuum from touching >> any tuples newer than the start of that transaction. >> >> >> >> -- >> john r pierce 37N 122W >> somewhere on the middle of the left coast >> >> >
