Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum and oldest xmin (again)

2004-11-04 Thread Kuba Ouhrabka
The problem is fully described in thread I mentioned earlier, Tom's excellent explanation can be found here: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=cs&lr=&frame=right&th=5227028cb3449572&seekm=11390.1080964720%40sss.pgh.pa.us#link14 Oh, that thing. Well, my opinion has not changed since April --- I

Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum and oldest xmin (again)

2004-11-04 Thread Kuba Ouhrabka
Hi, I think it's most likely that there were also old transactions in the current database. Only the shared tables (pg_shadow, pg_database, pg_group) are vacuumed using a cutoff that depends on non-local transactions. in my case, there are really no old transactions in current database. Looking at

Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum and oldest xmin (again)

2004-11-04 Thread Kuba Ouhrabka
My suggestion is to add some more logic to vacuum to get correct oldest xmin - local to current database. If you read the code a little more closely, you'd see that it already does. regards, tom lane Could you pls tell what has changed since 7.4? I'm not able to find it... Thanks

[HACKERS] Vacuum and oldest xmin (again)

2004-11-04 Thread Kuba Ouhrabka
Hi, we use 7.4 and suffer from table and index bloat. I tracked down the issue to vacuum using GetOldestXmin() which returns the oldest xmin of any database in cluster, not xmin of the current database. Yes, I've read the thread about this issue called "Problems Vacuumi'ng" - April 2004 http://grou