Re: Cluster "stuck" in "not accepting commands to avoid wraparound data loss"
От | Jeff Janes |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Cluster "stuck" in "not accepting commands to avoid wraparound data loss" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAMkU=1zUEU+P3R9JRUQ8Sn=5iyO0L4acmF9eQdDk4_nc2X7Afg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Cluster "stuck" in "not accepting commands to avoid wraparound data loss" (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: