On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 10:28:25PM +0000, Floris Van Nee wrote: > > > > I wonder if it's related to this issue: > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message- > > id/20210423234256.hwopuftipdmp3...@alap3.anarazel.de > > > > Have you increased autovacuum_freeze_max_age from its default? This > > already sounds like the kind of database where that would make > > sense. > > > > autovacuum_freeze_max_age is increased in our setup indeed (it is > set to 500M). However, we do regularly run manual VACUUM (FREEZE) > on individual tables in the database, including this one. A lot of > tables in the database follow an INSERT-only pattern and since it's > not running v13 yet, this meant that these tables would only rarely > be touched by autovacuum. Autovacuum would sometimes kick in on some > of these tables at the same time at unfortunate moments. Therefore we > have some regular job running that VACUUM (FREEZE)s tables with a xact > age higher than a (low, 10M) threshold ourselves.
OK, this is confirmation that the pg_resetwal bug, and its use by pg_upgrade, is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. I am prepared to work on it now. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
