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 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 database
> > > > has
> > > > only some 10k changes per day. The wraparound was my first idea, but i
> > > > don't see a reason, why this should be happen with every autovacuum run.
> > > >
> > > Did you check freeze_max_age values in the pg_autovacuum table ? A very
> > > small value can trigger XID wraparound related VACUUMs in every run.
> >
> > The value is '0' for all columns in all entries, except 'vacrelid' and
> > 'enabled'.
> > Can a VACUUM run happen, even if enabled is set to false?
>
> Huh, try putting -1 in all columns instead. 0 is a nasty value to have
> in there. I haven't tested the effects but if freeze_max_age is 0 it
> may be doing what Pavan says.
Ok, did this. Will take a look, what autovacuum is doing now.
Thanks for the help
--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
(Ferenc Mantfeld)
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org/
