Bruce Momjian wrote: > > It does seem possible that that could happen, but I'm not sure exactly > > what would be causing autovacuum to fire in the first place. It > > wouldn't have to be triggered by the anti-wraparound machinery - if > > the table appeared to be in need of vacuuming, then we'd vacuum it, > > discover that is was empty, and update relfrozenxid. Hmm... could it > > fire just because the table has no stats? But if that were the case > > you'd think we'd be seeing this more often. > > Well, autovacuum=off, so it should only run in freeze mode, and I can't > see how that could happen. I am thinking I have to study autovacuum.c. > > I wonder if datfrozenxid could be incremented because the database is > originally empty. It would just need to scan pg_class, not actually > vacuum anything. I wonder if we do that. The bottom line is I am > hanging too much on autovacuum_freeze_max_age causing autovacuum to do > nothing.
What if we allow autovacuum_max_workers to be set to zero; the current minimum is one. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers