From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Cluster "stuck" in "not accepting commands to avoid wraparound data loss" |
Date: | 2015-12-17 17:31:15 |
Message-ID: | CAMkU=1zUEU+P3R9JRUQ8Sn=5iyO0L4acmF9eQdDk4_nc2X7Afg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> Looking at datfrozenxid:
> postgres=# select datname, datfrozenxid, age(datfrozenxid) FROM pg_database ;
> datname | datfrozenxid | age
> -----------+--------------+-----------
> template1 | 3357685367 | 0
> template0 | 3357685367 | 0
> postgres | 3159867733 | 197817634
> (3 rows)
> reveals that the launcher doesn't do squat because it doesn't think it
> needs to do anything.
>
> (gdb) p *ShmemVariableCache
> $3 = {nextOid = 24576, oidCount = 0, nextXid = 3357685367, oldestXid = 1211201715, xidVacLimit = 1411201715, xidWarnLimit = 3347685362,
> xidStopLimit = 3357685362, xidWrapLimit = 3358685362, oldestXidDB = 12380, oldestCommitTs = 0, newestCommitTs = 0,
> latestCompletedXid = 3357685366}
Do we know how template0 and template1 get frozen with xid which were
5 past the xidStopLimit? Is that part of the mystery here, or is that
normal?
Cheers,
Jeff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-12-17 18:08:15 | Re: Fwd: Cluster "stuck" in "not accepting commands to avoid wraparound data loss" |
Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2015-12-17 17:29:14 | Re: Should TIDs be typbyval = FLOAT8PASSBYVAL to speed up CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY? |