Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 00:12:32 +0200 Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 12:06:41 -0400 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
The value is '0' for all columns in all entries, except 'vacrelid' and
'enabled'.
Can a
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 19:12:46 -0400 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Oops :-( We should certainly make an effort to check the validity of
the values in pg_autovacuum, but 0 is a perfectly valid value, so the
check would not help you any in this case :-(
Apparently not, taken into account, that the
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 00:12:32 +0200 Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 12:06:41 -0400 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
The value is '0' for all columns in all entries, except 'vacrelid' and
'enabled'.
Can a VACUUM run happen, even if enabled is set
On 7/5/07, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:04:35 -0400 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Most likely it is worried about XID wraparound, and those are precisely
the tables that need urgent vacuumed because they haven't been vacuumed
in a long time.
No,
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 19:47:12 -0400 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
Oh. It's not the age. Please let us look at the pg_stat_user_tables
entries for the involved tables? If it's picking the same tables maybe
pgstats has stale info, but why is it not updating it?
Hmm,
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:30:19 +0530 Pavan Deolasee wrote:
Hello,
On 7/5/07, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:04:35 -0400 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Most likely it is worried about XID wraparound, and those are
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:30:19 +0530 Pavan Deolasee wrote:
Hello,
On 7/5/07, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:04:35 -0400 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Most likely it is worried about XID wraparound, and those are precisely
the tables that need urgent
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 12:06:41 -0400 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:30:19 +0530 Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On 7/5/07, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:04:35 -0400 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Most likely
Hello,
we got a small problem with auto_vacuum: since we have some big tables
which have heavy read/write access, we tried to exclude this tables
from autovacuum:
database1=# select vacrelid,enabled,(select relname from pg_class where
oid=vacrelid) as relname from pg_autovacuum;
vacrelid |
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
Hello,
we got a small problem with auto_vacuum: since we have some big tables
which have heavy read/write access, we tried to exclude this tables
from autovacuum:
database1=# select vacrelid,enabled,(select relname from pg_class where
oid=vacrelid) as
Hello,
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:04:35 -0400 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Most likely it is worried about XID wraparound, and those are precisely
the tables that need urgent vacuumed because they haven't been vacuumed
in a long time.
No, autovacuum is doing this with every run. Beside this, the
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:04:35 -0400 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Most likely it is worried about XID wraparound, and those are precisely
the tables that need urgent vacuumed because they haven't been vacuumed
in a long time.
No, autovacuum is doing
Hello,
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:40:15 -0400 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:04:35 -0400 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Most likely it is worried about XID wraparound, and those are precisely
the tables that need urgent vacuumed because they haven't
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:40:15 -0400 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:04:35 -0400 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Most likely it is worried about XID wraparound, and those are precisely
the tables that
14 matches
Mail list logo
