Usually, this is done by logrotate or a similar mechanism in your system.
You’ll likely find that other logs in your system follow a similar pattern, not
just Postgresql.
— Stephen
On Dec 4, 2019, 3:21 PM -0800, Rich Shepard , wrote:
> Running Slackware-14.2/x86_64 and postgresql-11.5.
>
> In
> Ideally VACUUM FULL should not require a giant lock on the table.
It is a massively expensive operation, regardless. Not sure if it is something
you want to run in production outside a maintenance window.
I would argue that frequent vacuum full is an antipattern. This will become a
matter of
Are you running Vacuum on the slave node? It has to run on the master.
Thanks,
– Stephen
On Feb 27, 2019, 6:43 AM -0800, github kran , wrote:
> Hello Team,
>
> We are using a PostgreSQL 9.6 and seeing the below error while trying to run
> a VACUUM on one of our live tables running in
160 million is a very low number. I manage production databases which
reach this value in a day easily. As other said, 200 million is the
default threshold for the anti-wraparound vacuums. I wouldn't worry,
specially for template0.
That said, there is nothing preventing you from temporarily
