On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 7:27 PM Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
See the docs about the freeze max age storage parameter -- the per-table
setting can decrease the global setting but not increase it.
Thanks Alvaro, that explains it. I found it in the docs: Note that
autovacuum
Hello, I'd like to postpone an autovacuum: VACUUM public.mytable (to
prevent wraparound) and handle it manually at another time. I thought I
could set these storage parameters on the large table in question
(mytable) like this:
ALTER TABLE mytable SET (
autovacuum_freeze_min_age=1000,
Steve Kehlet wrote:
Hello, I'd like to postpone an autovacuum: VACUUM public.mytable (to
prevent wraparound) and handle it manually at another time. I thought I
could set these storage parameters on the large table in question
(mytable) like this:
ALTER TABLE mytable SET (
Greg Williamson wrote:
running transactions can cause autovacuum processes to stall
out or be autocancelled. Long running transactions - is now
long? In our system it's rare to have a transaction (even a
prepared transaction) last much longer than a few minutes. Is
that enough time to cause
The good news is that we have now resolved our critical problem (disk
space overuse) with a somewhat hackish, slow answer that is nonetheless
good enough for now.
Now I'd like to work out how to get autovacuum to work smoothly within
our cluster. I'm happy to try to clarify my notes and post
Lists wrote:
There's a wealth of how to tune PG instruction that's old and
(based on this thread alone) often stale enough to be classified
as disinformative. For example, nearest I can tell, the entirety of
this page is just wrong and/or irrelevant for 9.x and up:
Kevin --
You wrote:
...
running transactions can cause autovacuum processes to stall
out or be autocancelled. Long running transactions - is now
long? In our system it's rare to have a transaction (even a
prepared transaction) last much longer than a few minutes. Is that
enough time to cause
On 11/13/2012 04:04 AM, Lists wrote:
There's a wealth of how to tune PG instruction that's old and (based
on this thread alone) often stale enough to be classified as
disinformative. For example, nearest I can tell, the entirety of this
page is just wrong and/or irrelevant for 9.x and up:
On 11/13/2012 10:29 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 11/13/2012 04:04 AM, Lists wrote:
There's a wealth of how to tune PG instruction that's old and (based
on this thread alone) often stale enough to be classified as
disinformative. For example, nearest I can tell, the entirety of this
page is
In general, autovacuum seems to work well on most of the tables I deal
with. However, in a couple of specific cases, it seems to fail miserably. I
would like to switch to manual vacuuming on those tables and disable
auto-vacuuming for those tables alone. Is this possible? I searched the
docs
On 10/24/2012 02:57 PM, Eliot Gable wrote:
In general, autovacuum seems to work well on most of the tables I deal
with. However, in a couple of specific cases, it seems to fail
miserably. I would like to switch to manual vacuuming on those tables
and disable auto-vacuuming for those tables
Eliot Gable escribió:
In general, autovacuum seems to work well on most of the tables I deal
with. However, in a couple of specific cases, it seems to fail miserably. I
would like to switch to manual vacuuming on those tables and disable
auto-vacuuming for those tables alone. Is this possible
Shaun Thomas escribió:
On 10/24/2012 02:57 PM, Eliot Gable wrote:
In general, autovacuum seems to work well on most of the tables I deal
with. However, in a couple of specific cases, it seems to fail
miserably. I would like to switch to manual vacuuming on those tables
and disable auto
On 28 Únor 2012, 1:53, Jameison Martin wrote:
I'm seeing GMTERROR: canceling autovacuum task lines in my logs.
It's not GMTERROR, it's GMT ERROR where GMT is a timezone. You should
put a space at the end of log_line_prefix I guess.
2012-02-27 23:53:28 GMTLOG: checkpoint starting: time
I'm seeing GMTERROR: canceling autovacuum task lines in my logs.
2012-02-27 23:53:28 GMTLOG: checkpoint starting: time
2012-02-27 23:53:31 GMTERROR: canceling autovacuum task
2012-02-27 23:53:31 GMTCONTEXT: automatic vacuum of table
somedb.pg_toast.pg_toast_33254
2012-02-27 23:53:32
Hi,
On 28 February 2012 11:53, Jameison Martin jameis...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm seeing GMTERROR: canceling autovacuum task lines in my logs.
That's *should* be fine. autovacuum daemon is smart enough to cancel
it self when other query needs access to the table. The affected table
will be
I'd like to temporarily disable autovacuum on a single database while it is
being loaded. Is there an easy way to do this?
__
*Mike Blackwell | Technical Analyst, Distribution Services/Rollout
Management | RR
Hi All
I am using a cluster setup having postgres-8.4.0 and slon 2.0.4 is being
used for replication . It happened that the autovacuum was not running
successfully on one of the nodes in cluster and was giving error :
2011-05-13 23:07:42 CDTERROR: canceling autovacuum task
2011-05-13 23:07:42
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 11:07 PM, tamanna madaan
tamanna.mad...@globallogic.com wrote:
Hi All
I am using a cluster setup having postgres-8.4.0 and slon 2.0.4 is being
There are known data eating bugs in that version of postgresql, and I
personally had issues with earlier 2.0.x releases. There
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:08 PM, u235sentinel u235senti...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm tracking a problem with our tables being bloated and was curious if
someone regularly kills autovacuum jobs, will autovacuum later reattempt to
vacuum the table it was killed under?
I've made autovacuum more
I'm tracking a problem with our tables being bloated and was curious if
someone regularly kills autovacuum jobs, will autovacuum later reattempt
to vacuum the table it was killed under?
I've made autovacuum more aggressive and given more worker threads. Yet
for some reason we're not keeping
Hi,
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 18:08 -0700, u235sentinel wrote:
I'm tracking a problem with our tables being bloated and was curious
if someone regularly kills autovacuum jobs, will autovacuum later
reattempt to vacuum the table it was killed under?
In 8.3+, autovacuum kills itself if when it
Gordon Shannon escribió:
Ah, now I see what you meant. Forgive me, I thought you were referring to
the pg_autovacuum table in 8.3 where you have to specifiy something for each
column, and -1 says use the default. It appears in 8.4.0 I have to
explicitly set ALL (?) other storage parameters
That looks like the fix for this, thanks! I will try to upgrade soon.
-- Gordon
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.comwrote:
Gordon Shannon escribió:
Ah, now I see what you meant. Forgive me, I thought you were referring
to
the pg_autovacuum table in
Ah, now I see what you meant. Forgive me, I thought you were referring to
the pg_autovacuum table in 8.3 where you have to specifiy something for each
column, and -1 says use the default. It appears in 8.4.0 I have to
explicitly set ALL (?) other storage parameters to -1 to get the default,
It appears to me that in my 8.4.0 system, autovacuum is running to prevent
wraparound contrary to the documentation. I have it set to a tables'
relfrozenxid has to get to 1.5 billion before that kicks in:
show autovacuum_freeze_max_age;
15
show vacuum_freeze_table_age;
13
Gordon Shannon escribió:
One possibly interesting thing is that this seems to have started just after
I set foo's autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor to 0.01, since I wanted more
frequent analyze runs. I wonder if that could be related.
You probably set the other values to 0, which includes the
This is 8.4, there is no pg_autovacuum table. I set it like this:
alter table foo set (autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor=0.01);
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.comwrote:
Gordon Shannon escribió:
One possibly interesting thing is that this seems to
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 16:45 -0700, Gordon Shannon wrote:
This is 8.4, there is no pg_autovacuum table. I set it like this:
alter table foo set (autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor=0.01);
That is 1% changes. I think you want .10
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL.org Major
Thanks, but I do want 1%.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.comwrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 16:45 -0700, Gordon Shannon wrote:
This is 8.4, there is no pg_autovacuum table. I set it like this:
alter table foo set (autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor=0.01);
Hi All
I am using postgres-8.1.2.
Can anyone please let me know if autovacuum in postgres-8.1.2 uses
prepared transactions.
Thanks a lot in advance
Regards
Tamanna
tamanna madaan tamanna.ma...@globallogic.com writes:
Can anyone please let me know if autovacuum in postgres-8.1.2 uses
prepared transactions.
Nope, it does not. Any prepared transactions you see hanging around
were created by some external client.
regards, tom lane
Thanks Tom ...
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:35 AM
To: tamanna madaan
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Gaurav Katiyar
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] does autovacuum in postgres-8.1.2 use prepared
transactions ??
tamanna madaan
Hi,
Thanks for your answers!
I'm using 8.1 and 8.2 on windows2003 servers, and it's true that i could
probably configure them much better.
We've recently moved to brand new dedicated database servers with pg8.3 on
debian in 2 projects and it has been much easier to configure these
correctly.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Willy-Bas Looswilly...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for your answers!
I'm using 8.1 and 8.2 on windows2003 servers, and it's true that i could
probably configure them much better.
Note that support for 8.1 on windows is gone, as it is no longer
considered
Hi,
Whenever i start a big action, like inserting millions of recs or doing a
large update, the autovacuum fires on top of that.
It has some adverse effects on performance when i need it most. More than
once a postgres service crashed on me because of it.
Sure, it had too little memory, but it
Willy-Bas Loos escribió:
Hi,
Whenever i start a big action, like inserting millions of recs or doing a
large update, the autovacuum fires on top of that.
It has some adverse effects on performance when i need it most. More than
once a postgres service crashed on me because of it.
Sure, it
Hi,
On Thursday 09 July 2009 19:25:15 Willy-Bas Loos wrote:
Whenever i start a big action, like inserting millions of recs or doing a
large update, the autovacuum fires on top of that.
You can configure autovacuum to use less resources.
In response to Willy-Bas Loos willy...@gmail.com:
Whenever i start a big action, like inserting millions of recs or doing a
large update, the autovacuum fires on top of that.
It has some adverse effects on performance when i need it most. More than
once a postgres service crashed on me
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Filip Rembiałkowski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes.
select setting from pg_settings where name = 'autovacuum';
Ah ha, thankyou! I assumed there must have been a view for the
settings, I guess I missed it when I looked at the various pg_* views.
Cheers,
-Blair
On Mar 17, 2008, at 11:25 PM, Blair Bethwaite wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Filip Rembiałkowski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes.
select setting from pg_settings where name = 'autovacuum';
Ah ha, thankyou! I assumed there must have been a view for the
settings, I guess I missed it
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Erik Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SHOW autovacuum;
That's even better, thanks Erik.
Cheers,
-Blair
--
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way
as to be understood by everyone, something that
no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the
exact
Hi all,
I've just upgraded to 8.3 and am looking at using autovacuum. We have
a long running application with high update frequency that
periodically issues vacuum commands itself. I'd like to be able to add
code to the app like:
if pg.autovacuum == on:
self.routine_vacuuming = False
else:
2008/3/18, Blair Bethwaite [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi all,
I've just upgraded to 8.3 and am looking at using autovacuum. We have
a long running application with high update frequency that
periodically issues vacuum commands itself. I'd like to be able to add
code to the app like:
if
On Feb 12, 2008, at 9:13 AM, Thomas Chille wrote:
vacuum_cost_delay = 200
vacuum_cost_page_hit = 6
vacuum_cost_limit = 100
Vacuum is going to take forever with those settings. I strongly
suggest you set them back to default. If you need to throttle vacuum,
try setting
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 04:13:33PM +0100, Thomas Chille wrote:
We are still using 8.1.4 because a database upgrade for us and our
product is a hefty step wich involves a lot of customer databases. But
if it could help we consider to upgrade to 8.1.11 or 8.3. What would u
suggest?
Obviously
Thomas Chille wrote:
My 1. question is,
if the known bugfixes for autovacuum after release 8.1.4 addressing my
depicted issues?
Not directly, but keep reading.
We are still using 8.1.4 because a database upgrade for us and our
product is a hefty step wich involves a lot of customer
Hi!
Some of our clients databases are performing less good after a while.
We are using autovacuum to vacuuming and analyzing the tables.
After some analyzes by my own it looks like that the tables or table
indexes are not analyzed or vacuumed fully or correctly.
A count(*) query takes multiple
Thomas Chille wrote:
Hi!
Some of our clients databases are performing less good after a while.
We are using autovacuum to vacuuming and analyzing the tables.
After some analyzes by my own it looks like that the tables or table
indexes are not analyzed or vacuumed fully or correctly.
You
Chander Ganesan wrote:
Jeremy Harris wrote:
Version:
PostgreSQL 8.2.4 on i686-redhat-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC)
4.1.2 20070418 (Red Hat 4.1.2-10)
We have one problematic table, which has a steady stream of entries
and a weekly mass-delete of ancient history. The bloat query from
Jeremy Harris wrote:
Chander Ganesan wrote:
Inserts don't generate dead tuples, and AVD looks at obsolete
tuples.. As such, I wouldn't expect AVD to kick off until after you
did a mass delete...assuming that delete was sizable enough to
trigger a vacuum.
Ah, that would explain it -
Jeremy Harris wrote:
Hi,
We're starting to run autovacuum for the first time on a system
that's been running with nightly cron-driven vacuum for some time.
Version:
PostgreSQL 8.2.4 on i686-redhat-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC)
4.1.2 20070418 (Red Hat 4.1.2-10)
We have one
Hi,
We're starting to run autovacuum for the first time on a system
that's been running with nightly cron-driven vacuum for some time.
Version:
PostgreSQL 8.2.4 on i686-redhat-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 4.1.2
20070418 (Red Hat 4.1.2-10)
We have one problematic table, which has a
On Jan 28, 2008 10:17 PM, Jeremy Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
We're starting to run autovacuum for the first time on a system
that's been running with nightly cron-driven vacuum for some time.
Version:
PostgreSQL 8.2.4 on i686-redhat-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 4.1.2
Christopher Browne wrote:
Is it possible that this table didn't see many updates, today?
Nope; about 24000 (according to the id sequence).
- Jeremy
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 22:17 +, Jeremy Harris wrote:
We have one problematic table, which has a steady stream of entries
and a weekly mass-delete of ancient history. The bloat query from
Greg Sabino Mullane (thanks to Greg Smith for pointing it out) returns:
schemaname | tablename |
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
Can you let me know what is the sql used to generate such a nice summary
of the tables?
Might as well dupe the old text; this went out to the performance list:
Greg Sabino Mullane released a Nagios plug-in for PostgreSQL that you can
grab at
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 20:57 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
Can you let me know what is the sql used to generate such a nice summary
of the tables?
Might as well dupe the old text; this went out to the performance list:
Greg Sabino Mullane released a
I installed postgres using windows installer and added the following lines
to end of postgresql.conf :
listen_addresses = '*'
log_destination = 'stderr'
redirect_stderr = on
stats_start_collector = on
stats_row_level = on
autovacuum = on
shared_buffers= 15000 #
log_line_prefix='\n%t %u %d %h
Schwenker, Stephen wrote:
Hello,
I've just compiled an instance of Postgresql 8.2.3 on a new linux box
and have added some databases to it. I've noticed however that the
autovacuum is not running. I have turned on the autovacuum,
stats_start_collector, and stats_row_level and still the
Schwenker, Stephen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It says it's on and I have also turned on all stats collecting.
My guess is that it's actually running but is not choosing to do any
vacuums for some reason. Try setting log_min_messages to DEBUG5 for
awhile and trawling the postmaster log for
It says it's on and I have also turned on all stats collecting.
-Original Message-
From: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 3:06 PM
To: Schwenker, Stephen
Cc: Tom Lane; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] 8.2.3 AutoVacuum not running
?
:)
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 06/04/2007 1:21 PM
To: Schwenker, Stephen
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] 8.2.3 AutoVacuum not running
Schwenker, Stephen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've just compiled an instance
@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] 8.2.3 AutoVacuum not running
Schwenker, Stephen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've just compiled an instance of Postgresql 8.2.3 on a new linux box
and have added some databases to it. I've noticed however that the
autovacuum is not running.
How sure are you
.
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 06/04/2007 1:21 PM
To: Schwenker, Stephen
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] 8.2.3 AutoVacuum not running
Schwenker, Stephen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've just compiled an instance of Postgresql 8.2.3 on a new linux box
Schwenker, Stephen wrote:
Hey,
I've also notice one difference between my 8.1 instance and my 8.2
instance. I run a ps and on the 8.1 instance there is a 'stats buffer
process' and in the 8.2 instance there is no 'stats buffer instance'
Does that give you anymore reasons as to why the
? :)
*From:* Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Fri 06/04/2007 1:21 PM
*To:* Schwenker, Stephen
*Cc:* pgsql-general@postgresql.org
*Subject:* Re: [GENERAL] 8.2.3 AutoVacuum not running
Schwenker, Stephen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Hello,
I've just compiled an instance of Postgresql 8.2.3 on a new linux box
and have added some databases to it. I've noticed however that the
autovacuum is not running. I have turned on the autovacuum,
stats_start_collector, and stats_row_level and still the autovacuum is
not running.
Can
Schwenker, Stephen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've just compiled an instance of Postgresql 8.2.3 on a new linux box
and have added some databases to it. I've noticed however that the
autovacuum is not running.
How sure are you of that? Check pg_stat_all_tables to see if the
last_autovacuum
69 matches
Mail list logo
