Rural Hunter ruralhun...@gmail.com wrote:
This was changed quite long time ago when I saw too frequent auto
vacuums to prevent the wrap-around on a very busy/large table
which slow down the performance. I will change it back to the
default to see how it works.
There was a long-standing bug
Hi all,
Background:
I have a large database from our test environment that got into trouble with
some high volume and some long-running queries about…six weeks ago? We have a
buffer mechanism that has been storing the new data since the database stopped
accepting connections, so we haven't
Thanks for the useful information.
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/postgresql-patching-tp5770236p5771014.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - admin mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To
于 2013/9/17 0:02, Kevin Grittner 写道:
Possibly. As I said before, I think the symptoms might better fit a
situation where the table in need of VACUUM was a shared table and it
just happened to mention db1 because that was the database it was
scanning at the time. (Every database includes the
During a maintenance window, we upgraded our systems to Postgres 9.0.13
from 9.0.3 running on FreeBSD 8.1 amd64.
When we restarted the postgres server, I notices, and continue to
notice, a recurrence of messages in the log.
2013-09-16 21:15:58 MDT LOG: automatic vacuum of table
