Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Nope, AFAICS it's harmless; what it means is that on those databases,
> all tuples will be frozen immediately.
>
> I'll try to reproduce the problem here.
No luck :-( It works as expected for me.
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt
Dave Cramer wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > My guess is that autovacuum is skipping the database for some reason, so
> > there's no log entry at all.
>
> Seems like a viable explanation, but doesn't advance us any further ?
Nope, it doesn
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Dave Cramer wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Could we first see a cycle of autovac log output with
> > > log_autovacuum_min_duration = 0?
> > > Otherwise we're not goi
Dave Cramer wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Could we first see a cycle of autovac log output with
> > log_autovacuum_min_duration = 0?
> > Otherwise we're not going to get closer to understanding why it's
> > not cleaning up template0 for you.
>
>
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Dave Cramer wrote:
> >> Well, I'm willing to help debug this, however this is a busy production
> >> database and I need to be able to turn it off for a few hours a day.
> Would
>
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dave Cramer wrote:
>> Well, I'm willing to help debug this, however this is a busy production
>> database and I need to be able to turn it off for a few hours a day. Would
>> changing autovacuum_freeze_max_age be a solution ?
> Yes.
Could we first see
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If it doesn't ignore them, then it should be properly vacuuming
> > template0 as any other database. We've changed autovac's behavior on
> > this area back and forth so I may be misremembering what's our rationale
> > du jour.
>
> A
Dave Cramer wrote:
> Well, I'm willing to help debug this, however this is a busy production
> database and I need to be able to turn it off for a few hours a day. Would
> changing autovacuum_freeze_max_age be a solution ?
Yes.
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.Command
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:58:59 -0400
"Dave Cramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, I'm willing to help debug this, however this is a busy
> production database and I need to be able to turn it off for a few
> hours a day. Would changing autovacuum_freeze_max_age be a solution ?
Populate the t
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If it doesn't ignore them, then it should be properly vacuuming
> template0 as any other database. We've changed autovac's behavior on
> this area back and forth so I may be misremembering what's our rationale
> du jour.
AFAICS, the only way in which c
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Dave Cramer wrote:
>
> > Yes
> >
> > select * from pg_database where datname='template0';
> > datname | datdba | encoding | datistemplate | datallowconn |
> datconnlimit
> > | datlastsysoid | datfrozenxid | dattable
Dave Cramer wrote:
> Yes
>
> select * from pg_database where datname='template0';
> datname | datdba | encoding | datistemplate | datallowconn | datconnlimit
> | datlastsysoid | datfrozenxid | dattablespace | datconfig |
> datacl
> ---++--+---+-
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dave Cramer wrote:
>> turns out template0 is the culprit, why is autovac not vacuuming this ?
> Hmm ... template0 is not supposed to need vacuuming, because it is
> frozen ... is it marked with datallowconn=false?
8.3's autovac doesn't care about that,
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Dave Cramer wrote:
>
> > Ok, back to why
> >
> > turns out template0 is the culprit, why is autovac not vacuuming this ?
>
> Hmm ... template0 is not supposed to need vacuuming, because it is
> frozen ... is it marked w
Dave Cramer wrote:
> Ok, back to why
>
> turns out template0 is the culprit, why is autovac not vacuuming this ?
Hmm ... template0 is not supposed to need vacuuming, because it is
frozen ... is it marked with datallowconn=false?
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.Comma
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>
> > AutoVacuumShmem->av_signal[AutoVacForkFailed] = false;
> > pg_usleep(10L); /* 100ms
> */
> >
> > SendPostmasterSignal(PMSIGNAL_START_AUTOVAC_WOR
Dave Cramer wrote:
> AutoVacuumShmem->av_signal[AutoVacForkFailed] = false;
> pg_usleep(10L); /* 100ms */
>
> SendPostmasterSignal(PMSIGNAL_START_AUTOVAC_WORKER);
> continue;
>
> Do these signals get cleaned up on a
Dave Cramer wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > What's the max age(pg_database.datfrozenxid)?
>
> select datfrozenxid from pg_database ;
> datfrozenxid
> --
> 201850617
> 101850961
> 86039359
> 21522712
Well, the first o
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Alvaro Herrera <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Dave Cramer wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> > > The only possible explanation
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Dave Cramer wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > The only possible explanation for this behavior is that somebody is
> > > signalling the postmaster due to Xid wrapar
Dave Cramer wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > The only possible explanation for this behavior is that somebody is
> > signalling the postmaster due to Xid wraparound issues. This is keyed
> > on some GUC vars -- Perhaps you have autovacuum_freeze_max
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Dave Cramer wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >> Certainly not, and that
Dave Cramer wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Certainly not, and that's not what I see here either. I assume process
> >> 25407 is (was) the postmaster, yes?
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Dave Cramer wrote:
>>
>> > Ok, here are the logs from last night
>> >
>> > 2008-08-26 04:00:02 EDT [25407] LOG: received SIGHUP, reload
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Dave Cramer wrote:
>
> > Ok, here are the logs from last night
> >
> > 2008-08-26 04:00:02 EDT [25407] LOG: received SIGHUP, reloading
> > configuration files
> > 2008-08-26 04:00:02 EDT [22649] LOG: autovacuum launche
Dave Cramer wrote:
> Ok, here are the logs from last night
>
> 2008-08-26 04:00:02 EDT [25407] LOG: received SIGHUP, reloading
> configuration files
> 2008-08-26 04:00:02 EDT [22649] LOG: autovacuum launcher shutting down
> 2008-08-26 04:00:02 EDT [30438] LOG: autovacuum launcher started
>
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 25-Aug-08, at 10:43 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Dave Cramer wrote:
>>
>> Well, I go the extra mile and kill any remaing autovac procs
>>>
>>> Here are the logs
>>>
>>> 2008-08-25 04:00:01 EDT [32276] LOG: autovacu
On 25-Aug-08, at 10:43 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
Well, I go the extra mile and kill any remaing autovac procs
Here are the logs
2008-08-25 04:00:01 EDT [32276] LOG: autovacuum launcher shutting
down
2008-08-25 04:00:01 EDT [20526] LOG: autovacuum launcher started
Dave Cramer wrote:
> Well, I go the extra mile and kill any remaing autovac procs
>
> Here are the logs
>
> 2008-08-25 04:00:01 EDT [32276] LOG: autovacuum launcher shutting down
> 2008-08-25 04:00:01 EDT [20526] LOG: autovacuum launcher started
What did you SIGHUP, the launcher or postmaster
Dave Cramer wrote:
> Since a number of people actually do this it would seem like a better
> way to temporarily suspend autovac should be on the todo ?
No -- what you are doing is documented to work. However, it only stops
the autovac launcher, not a currently-running worker. If this isn't
wo
On 24-Aug-08, at 10:17 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Hi Dave,
Dave Cramer wrote:
I'd like to stop autovac by changing the conf file then sending the
server a HUP
This "appears" to work, the logs show autovac terminated by
administrative command. Then a few minutes later I see a vacuum
process
On 24-Aug-08, at 10:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'd like to stop autovac by changing the conf file then sending the
server a HUP
Uh ... why should that stop an autovac already in progress? I'd
only expect it to affect future launches.
Well, I go the ext
Hi Dave,
Dave Cramer wrote:
> I'd like to stop autovac by changing the conf file then sending the
> server a HUP
>
> This "appears" to work, the logs show autovac terminated by
> administrative command. Then a few minutes later I see a vacuum process
> spawned.
>
> Is it possible that there a
Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like to stop autovac by changing the conf file then sending the
> server a HUP
Uh ... why should that stop an autovac already in progress? I'd
only expect it to affect future launches.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-h
I'd like to stop autovac by changing the conf file then sending the
server a HUP
This "appears" to work, the logs show autovac terminated by
administrative command. Then a few minutes later I see a vacuum
process spawned.
Is it possible that there are timers that aren't being properly
t
35 matches
Mail list logo
