Interesting... age(xid) isn't documented anywhere. No, vacuum shouldn't be generating a lot of xid's. My guess is that your generating process actually does 2 transactions per row. On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:16:24AM -0700, Sriram Dandapani wrote: > When I run this query > > > > fwdb01=# select current_timestamp,datname,age(datfrozenxid) from > pg_database; > > now | datname | age > > -------------------------------+-----------+------------ > > 2006-09-28 18:04:24.489935+00 | postgres | 1087834006 > > 2006-09-28 18:04:24.489935+00 | fwdb01 | 2039254861 > > 2006-09-28 18:04:24.489935+00 | template1 | 2039253122 > > 2006-09-28 18:04:24.489935+00 | template0 | 1542808250 > > (4 rows) > > > > fwdb01=# select current_timestamp,datname,age(datfrozenxid) from > pg_database; > > now | datname | age > > ------------------------------+-----------+------------ > > 2006-09-28 18:10:45.64452+00 | postgres | 1088357075 > > 2006-09-28 18:10:45.64452+00 | fwdb01 | 2039777930 > > 2006-09-28 18:10:45.64452+00 | template1 | 2039776191 > > 2006-09-28 18:10:45.64452+00 | template0 | 1543331319 > > > > > > In approximately 6 minutes, the fwdb01 count has gone up by about 500K. > I am generating about 250K rows for every 6 . I am also running > vacuumdb. > > > > Does vacuumdb generate a lot of transactions that affects this counter. > -- Jim Nasby jim@xxxxxxxxx EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
