On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Friday 19 September 2008 00:23:34 Jeffrey Baker wrote:
> > Anyway, I have some issues. One, of course, is that the autovacuum
> should
> > not have been deadlocked or otherwise stalled like that. Perhaps it
> needs
>
On Friday 19 September 2008 00:23:34 Jeffrey Baker wrote:
> Anyway, I have some issues. One, of course, is that the autovacuum should
> not have been deadlocked or otherwise stalled like that. Perhaps it needs
> a watchdog of some kind. Has anyone else experienced an issue like that in
> 8.3.1?
Jeffrey Baker wrote:
Secondly, there really does need to be an autovacuum=off,really,thanks so
that my maintenance can proceed without competition for i/o resources. Is
there any way to make that happen?
You could bump up autovacuum_freeze_max_age while you run the vacuums
manually, and then
I have an 8.3.1 instance on Linux and since June 29th the autovacuum process
has claimed to be working on the same three tables. That's OK, I am a very
patient man, and these are very large tables. Today I started to get
transaction wraparound warnings, so I go and check it out. Turns out the
au
