Re: [HACKERS] Problems with autovacuum and vacuum

2011-01-03 Thread JotaComm
Hello, Filip

2011/1/1 Filip Rembiałkowski plk.zu...@gmail.com


 2010/12/30 JotaComm jota.c...@gmail.com

 Hello,

 Last week I had a serious problem with my PostgreSQL database. My
 autovacuum is OFF, but in September it started to prevent the transaction
 wraparoud; however last week the following message appeared continuously in
 my log:

 WARNING: database production must be vacuumed within 4827083
 transactions
 HINT: To avoid a database shutdown, execute a full-database VACUUM in
 production.

 This message appeared for five to six hours; after that, the message
 disappeared from log. Any idea about what could have happened?



 probably another wraparaund-forced autovacuum worker did the job, so the
 warnings disappeared



 Every day the vacuum is executed on some tables; and on Sundays it's
 executed on all tables. But as the autovacuum is running since September,
 and it runs for a long time, the vacuum was blocked because autovacuum had
 been running on the same table. How should I procede in this case?



 hmm. single vacuum process runs for more than 3 months on a table with
 10 rows?
 this is ... less than 128 rows/second, not good.

 I would rather terminate this old process, and start a VACUUM VERBOSE when
 the database is less loaded.


 How many INS/UPD/DEL you have on this table?


About 15 millions rows inserted by day.




 PS. When you fix this, enable autovacuum, to avoid more problems...




Regards,

João Paulo

-- 
JotaComm
http://jotacomm.wordpress.com


Re: [HACKERS] Problems with autovacuum and vacuum

2011-01-01 Thread Filip Rembiałkowski
2010/12/30 JotaComm jota.c...@gmail.com

 Hello,

 Last week I had a serious problem with my PostgreSQL database. My
 autovacuum is OFF, but in September it started to prevent the transaction
 wraparoud; however last week the following message appeared continuously in
 my log:

 WARNING: database production must be vacuumed within 4827083 transactions

 HINT: To avoid a database shutdown, execute a full-database VACUUM in
 production.

 This message appeared for five to six hours; after that, the message
 disappeared from log. Any idea about what could have happened?



probably another wraparaund-forced autovacuum worker did the job, so the
warnings disappeared



 Every day the vacuum is executed on some tables; and on Sundays it's
 executed on all tables. But as the autovacuum is running since September,
 and it runs for a long time, the vacuum was blocked because autovacuum had
 been running on the same table. How should I procede in this case?



hmm. single vacuum process runs for more than 3 months on a table with
10 rows?
this is ... less than 128 rows/second, not good.

I would rather terminate this old process, and start a VACUUM VERBOSE when
the database is less loaded.


How many INS/UPD/DEL you have on this table?



PS. When you fix this, enable autovacuum, to avoid more problems...


Re: [HACKERS] Problems with autovacuum and vacuum

2010-12-30 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:56 PM, JotaComm jota.c...@gmail.com wrote:
 Last week I had a serious problem with my PostgreSQL database. My autovacuum
 is OFF, but in September it started to prevent the transaction wraparoud;
 however last week the following message appeared continuously in my log:

 WARNING: database production must be vacuumed within 4827083 transactions
 HINT: To avoid a database shutdown, execute a full-database VACUUM in
 production.

 This message appeared for five to six hours; after that, the message
 disappeared from log. Any idea about what could have happened?

I'm thinking that autovacuum kicked into gear to prevent transaction
wraparound.  Once it did enough work to stave off disaster, the
warning messages stopped appearing in the log.

 Every day the vacuum is executed on some tables; and on Sundays it's
 executed on all tables. But as the autovacuum is running since September,
 and it runs for a long time, the vacuum was blocked because autovacuum had
 been running on the same table. How should I procede in this case?

I guess the obvious thing to do would be to turn on autovacuum and
forget about manual vacuums.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers