y are not younger than 100
million. They were all over the default value of 150 as are the remaining
2, relminxid/relfrozenid advanced, relminxid to match NextMultiXactID and
age went down. But good point to keep in mind.
Best regards
Daniel
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wr
ep it going
since it seems to have a good pace now.
Many thanks for your insight and guidance!
Best regards
Daniel
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Hello Daniel
>
> The advice from Lawrence downthread is very much on point. If you can
> upgrade to 9.5, do it. He
> as presumably newer Postgres versions correctly no-op when a transaction
> tries locking a row when its parent is already present in the multixact.
>
> This comes with the disclaimer of a Postgres amateur, it simply seemed
> relevant to your situation.
>
> Lawrence
>
ver completed on the
bigger tables which are around 2 TB.
Best regards
Daniel
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2018-Jun-13, Daniel Lagerman wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > I have a question where I'm trying to determine the seriousness of the
>
Hello!
I have a question where I'm trying to determine the seriousness of the
problem.
I repacked a table to give space back to the OS and that was fine. However
since then I just noted that I see multixact "members" limit exceeded every
time there is an insert on that table. A Vacuum has yet to
east close
the gap so that are confident that we will catch up.
Best regards
Daniel
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:47 PM, David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, June 4, 2018, Daniel Lagerman wrote:
>
>> I have a pg 9.4.3 server that has one table with
Hello!
Please note that I have read:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/routine-vacuuming.html#VACUUM-FOR-WRAPAROUND
And I think i understand how the settings are supposed work, however I do
have a question in regards to Autovaccum wrap-around and how it is
triggered. I have a pg 9.4.
