On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Thomas Munro wrote: > >> 4. You could look into whether all those multixacts with many member >> are really expected. (Large numbers of concurrent FK checks or >> explicit share locks on the same rows perhaps? A good proportion of >> this happened on one day this week I see.) > > I think maybe this patch > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150620043650.GX133018%40postgresql.org > should help with this. I expect to come back to this and get it pushed > to 9.3 and 9.4 sometime ...
Ah, so the OP might get some improvement today by moving to 9.5, which has the optimization already. BTW in my message above I said vacuum_multixact_freeze_table_age when I meant to say autovacuum_multixact_freeze_max_age (and its default is 400 million). -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
