On 11/01/2012 09:18 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Did you bulk load this data (possibly through restoring pg_dump
> output)? If so, and you have not explicitly run VACUUM FREEZE
> afterward, the vacuum noticed that it was time to freeze all of these
> tuples.
Ok, that might explain it, then. We did in fact just upgrade from 8.2 to
9.1 about 2 weeks ago. And no, I didn't do a VACUUM FREEZE, just a
VACUUM ANALYZE to make sure stats were ready. I'm still a little
uncertain what the tangible difference is between a FREEZE and a regular
VACUUM. I get that it sets freeze_min_age to 0, but why does that even
matter? Is 50M out of 2B not good enough? Every VACUUM knocks the
counter back to the minimum, so I guess I don't get the justification
for magically forcing the minimum to be lower.
Of course, all that page marking would definitely produce a butt-ton of
transaction logs. So at least that makes sense. :)
Thanks, Keven!
> You haven't mentioned anything that should be taken as evidence of
> corruption or any unusual behavior on the part of PostgreSQL.
No, but I was a little freaked out by the unexplained activity.
--
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-444-8534
sthomas@optionshouse.com
______________________________________________
See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email
