On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2015-12-17 13:08:15 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> > On 2015-12-17 09:04:25 -0800, Jeff Janes wrote: >> >> > But I'm somewhat confused what this has to do with Andres's report. >> >> >> >> Doesn't it explain the exact situation he is in, where the oldest >> >> database is 200 million, but the cluster as a whole is 2 billion? >> > >> > There were no crashes, so no, I don't think so. >> >> Backing up a step, do we think that the fact that this was running in >> a shell rather than a screen is relevant somehow? Or did something >> happen to this particular cluster totally unrelated to that? > > I reran the whole thing on a separate, but very similar, VM. Just > checked. Same thing happened. This time I have log files and > everything. No time to investigate right now, but it's reproducible if > you accept running tests for a week or so.
I don't think I'm going to speculate further until you have time to investigate more. It seems clear that autovacuum is going wrong somehow, but it's extremely unclear why. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
