Re: transactoin id wraparound problem - Mailing list pgsql-admin

From Scott Marlowe
Subject Re: transactoin id wraparound problem
Date
Msg-id 1157577495.20424.29.camel@state.g2switchworks.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to transactoin id wraparound problem  ("Sriram Dandapani" <sdandapani@counterpane.com>)
Responses Re: transactoin id wraparound problem  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-admin
On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 16:06, Sriram Dandapani wrote:
> Curious why autovacuum does not handle this problem. Here are my
> settings
>
> max_fsm_pages = 2000000
>
> autovacuum = on                                # enable autovacuum
>
> autovacuum_naptime = 300                # time between autovacuum runs,
> in
>
> autovacuum_vacuum_threshold = 10000     # min # of tuple updates before
>                                         # vacuum
> autovacuum_analyze_threshold = 1500     # min # of tuple updates before
>                                         # analyze
> autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor = 0.4    # fraction of rel size before
>                                         # vacuum
> autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor = 0.2   # fraction of rel size before
>                                         # analyze
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay = 100
>
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit = 1000
>
>
> The database has a constant rate of about 50-100G a day of data flowing
> in which gets deleted after 2 days.(this cycle keeps repeating). There
> are historical tables that grow at a rate of 2G-4G a day

The most common cause of these problems is that you have long standing
transactions that never get closed.  Look for some connection to the
database(s) (any of them) that are never committed or rolled back.  One
"idle in transaction" connection from one program can cause this
problem.

If you're doing your updates and / or deletes individually instead of in
transactional batches that will just make it worse.



pgsql-admin by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Why so long between archive calls?
Next
From: "Sriram Dandapani"
Date:
Subject: Re: transactoin id wraparound problem