Its 8.1 and I'm doing a Vacuum using the vacuumdb program.
Thanks Matt, might be time for an upgrade.
> Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:21:44 -0400
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> CC: pgsql-general@postgresql.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] V
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 8.2. But you could still get that message, even in CVS HEAD, if
>> autovacuum was failing to complete for some reason (and had been
>> failing for quite a long time).
> Should that message to updated since a database-wide vacu
Tom Lane wrote:
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BTW, what version of PostgreSQL is this? Database-wide vacuum is no
longer required for XID wraparound issues. I think this was an 8.3
change but might have happened in 8.2, I don't remember.
8.2. But you could still get tha
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Monday 04 August 2008 11:04:00 pm Robert Shaw wrote:
>>> "WARNING: database "mydb" must be vacuumed within 177009986 transactions
>>> HINT: To avoid a database shutdown, execute a full-database VACUUM in
>>> "mydb".
> BTW, what version of P
Adrian Klaver wrote:
On Monday 04 August 2008 11:04:00 pm Robert Shaw wrote:
"WARNING: database "mydb" must be vacuumed within 177009986 transactions
HINT: To avoid a database shutdown, execute a full-database VACUUM in
"mydb"."Which is reason I ask the question, is full vacuum backup useful
f
On Monday 04 August 2008 11:04:00 pm Robert Shaw wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been trying to get to the bottom of the differences between a vacuum
> and a vacuum full, it seems to me that the difference is that a vacuum full
> also recovers disk space(and locks things making it less than useful on
> produ
Hi,
I've been trying to get to the bottom of the differences between a vacuum and a
vacuum full, it seems to me that the difference is that a vacuum full also
recovers disk space(and locks things making it less than useful on production
servers). But I believe that both will fix the transacti
