On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2015-12-17 09:04:25 -0800, Jeff Janes wrote: >> > But I'm somewhat confused what this has to do with Andres's report. >> >> Doesn't it explain the exact situation he is in, where the oldest >> database is 200 million, but the cluster as a whole is 2 billion? > > There were no crashes, so no, I don't think so.
Backing up a step, do we think that the fact that this was running in a shell rather than a screen is relevant somehow? Or did something happen to this particular cluster totally unrelated to that? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers