> On Jun 3, 2025, at 6:23 PM, David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 at 07:22, Matthew Tice wrote:
>> Tue 03 Jun 2025 07:13:11 PM UTC (every 1s)
>> n_dead_tup | 5038
>> autoanalyze_count | 3078
>
>> Tue 03 Jun 2025 07:13:12 PM UTC (every
Hi all,
While investigating some potential vacuum improvements to make to a table I
happened to notice that one table (along with others) will suddenly increase
the number of n_dead_tup reported in pg_stat_user_tables without a
corresponding increase in the inserts, updates, or deletes.
For in
> On Oct 16, 2024, at 10:50 AM, Christophe Pettus wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Oct 16, 2024, at 09:47, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I believe it depends on your platform --- some BSDen are pretty
>> permissive about this, if memory serves. On a Linux box it seems
>> to work for processes owned by yourself eve
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 10:26 AM Adrian Klaver
wrote:
> On 8/23/24 09:14, Matthew Tice wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'm trying to understand why there's a difference between what
> > pgstattuple reports and pg_stat_user_tables reports (for the number of
>
Hi All,
I'm trying to understand why there's a difference between what pgstattuple
reports and pg_stat_user_tables reports (for the number of dead tuples).
As I understand, pgstattuple and pgstattuple_approx return the exact number
of dead tuples (as noted in the documentation) and based on an ol
e.
I still plan on patching to 10.17 tonight.
Matt
On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 4:01 PM Matthew Tice wrote:
>
> Hi Alvaro, thanks for the quick reply.
>
> I'm scheduled to do my patching maintenance at the end of this month -
> but at this point I don't think I'm going to m
ly always remove both the shared and local init files.
I'm not familiar with the differences between 'shared' and 'local'
init files (I'd imagine I referenced a 'local' file in my original
post)?
Thanks!
Matt
On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 3:00 PM Alvaro Herrera
Hi,
Starting this morning at 0830 local time I noticed that my
datfrozenxid starts moving past the `autovacuum_freeze_max_age` value
of 2. When we encountered this in the past the solution has
been to do one of the following:
1. This is related an error similar to
```
found xmin 2675436
