On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2015-12-17 09:04:25 -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> > But I'm somewhat confused what this has to do with Andres's report.
>>
>> Doesn't it explain the exact situation he is in, where the oldest
>> database is 200 million, but the cluster as a whole is 2 billion?
>
> There were no crashes, so no, I don't think so.
Backing up a step, do we think that the fact that this was running in
a shell rather than a screen is relevant somehow? Or did something
happen to this particular cluster totally unrelated to that?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company