On further review this particular server skipped from 9.2.2 to 9.2.4. This
is my most busy and downtime sensitive server and I was waiting on a
maintenance window to patch to 9.2.3 when 9.2.4 dropped and bumped up the
urgency. However, I have 3 other less busy production servers that were
all
Does this behavior only affect the 9.2 branch? Or was it ported to 9.1 or
9.0 or 8.4 as well?
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
However I've got to say that both of those side-effects of
exclusive-lock abandonment
Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com wrote:
Does this behavior only affect the 9.2 branch? Or was it ported
to 9.1 or 9.0 or 8.4 as well?
After leaving it on master for a while to see if anyone reported
problems in development, I back-patched as far as 9.0 in time for
the 9.2.3 (and related)
Looks like psql vacuum (verbose, analyze) is not reflecting in
pg_stat_user_tables as well in some cases. In this scenario I run the
command, it outputs all the deleted pages etc (unlike the vacuumdb -avz
analyze that seemed to be skipped in the log), but it does not update
pg_stat_user_tables.
Mike Broers mbro...@gmail.com writes:
After patching to 9.2.4 I am noticing some mysterious behavior in my
nightly vacuumdb cron job.
I have been running vacuumdb -avz nightly for a while now, and have a
script that tells me the next day if all the tables in pg_stat_user_tables
have been
On Thursday, April 11, 2013, Tom Lane wrote:
[ pokes around ... ] You certain 9.2.3 didn't do this too? This
appears to be an intentional behavior of the 9.2.3 patch that made it
cancel truncation when there were conflicting lock requests:
/*
* Report results to the stats
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com writes:
I believe the rationale was so that an autovacuum would still look like it
was needed, and get fired again the next naptime, so that it could continue
with the truncation attempts. (Rather than waiting for 20% turnover in the
table before trying again).
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
However I've got to say that both of those side-effects of
exclusive-lock abandonment seem absolutely brain dead now that I
see them. Why would we not bother to tell the stats collector
what we've done? Why would we think we should not do ANALYZE
when we
