Alan Stange writes:
> On 8/28/23 18:35, Jerry Sievers wrote:
>
>> Adrian Klaver writes:
>>
>>> On 8/28/23 13:06, Alan Stange wrote:
>>>
All,
We recently changed the name of the superuser role in our database,
>> My take on this, is that the *postmaster* user is perhaps the one that
>>
On 8/28/23 18:35, Jerry Sievers wrote:
> Adrian Klaver writes:
>
>> On 8/28/23 13:06, Alan Stange wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>> We recently changed the name of the superuser role in our database,
> My take on this, is that the *postmaster* user is perhaps the one that
> the OP cut privileges on, and thus
Adrian Klaver writes:
> On 8/28/23 13:06, Alan Stange wrote:
>
>> All,
>> We recently changed the name of the superuser role in our database,
My take on this, is that the *postmaster* user is perhaps the one that
the OP cut privileges on, and thus the launcher is (now) spawning
workers with less
On 8/28/23 13:19, Alan Stange wrote:
On 8/28/23 16:11, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 8/28/23 13:06, Alan Stange wrote:
All,
Are you sure that is coming from autovacuum?
What are the log lines preceding the WARNING?
What is the complete warning line?
Thank you for your quick response.
The pref
On 8/28/23 16:11, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 8/28/23 13:06, Alan Stange wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> We recently changed the name of the superuser role in our database, and
>> then noticed some issues with the autovacuum processes. We are running
>> 15.3, and had a login role, lets call it 'red', which had
On 8/28/23 13:06, Alan Stange wrote:
All,
We recently changed the name of the superuser role in our database, and
then noticed some issues with the autovacuum processes. We are running
15.3, and had a login role, lets call it 'red', which had the superuser
attribute assigned to it. This was t
All,
We recently changed the name of the superuser role in our database, and
then noticed some issues with the autovacuum processes. We are running
15.3, and had a login role, lets call it 'red', which had the superuser
attribute assigned to it. This was the original owner/creator of all
the da
Greetings,
* Torsten Förtsch (tfoertsch...@gmail.com) wrote:
> I have a table with a really small number of rows, usually about 1500,
> sometimes may be up to 5000. The usage pattern of that table is such that
> rows are inserted and kept for a while, mostly seconds or minutes but
> theoretically
Hi,
I have a table with a really small number of rows, usually about 1500,
sometimes may be up to 5000. The usage pattern of that table is such that
rows are inserted and kept for a while, mostly seconds or minutes but
theoretically up to 1 year. After that they are deleted. No updates, just
inser
