On 5/18/20 6:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Don Seiler <don@seiler.us> writes:
>> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:40 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
>> wrote:
>>> Perhaps autovacuum never handled "template0" because it concluded (rightly)
>>> that it has to deal with "foo_db" first.
>
>> Yes this DB had a table in it that had been autovacuuming since Feb 2. It's
>> age is half way to wraparound so I'm in the middle of a manual VACUUM
>> FREEZE on it. I'd be interested in knowing if that prevents template0 from
>> autovacuuming itself. There are no other autovacuum jobs running.
>
> I think we did put in a change that would prevent any one database from
> completely consuming autovacuum's attention, even in wraparound-hazard
> situations. Don't recall when.
This?:
https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=dd9ac7d5d80608a640bb82cffb6a805ce84cf112
which I believe is only for 12 and is in the 12.3 release.
>
> Do you have an idea why autovac was failing to clear the issue on that one
> problem table, though?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
