>> I am seeing something weird though (again, this is v9.1): after my database became usable again, I started getting the 10M warning on template0. So I made it connectable and ran VACUUM >>FREEZE on it and made it unconnectable again. That resolve the warning. >> >> However, I see the “age” keeps increasing on that database as I ran queries on my own db. Yesterday the age was 32 and now it’s already 77933902 >Just to be sure you are talking about template0? Yes, I am >> Is that to be expected ? I didn’t expect it >As I understand it; > > 1) xid's are global to the cluster. > 2) age(xid) measures the difference between the latest global xid to > whatever xid you supply it. > 3) age(datfrozenxid) measures the difference between the minimum value > for the table frozen ids in a particular database and the latest global xid. > 4) template0 has a datfrozenxid so there is something for age(xid) to > compute, it just does not mean anything as long as template0 is really a > read-only database. In other words template0 is not actually > contributing any transactions to the consumption of the global store of > xids. Yes, I understand. I’m just worried that if I see the WARNING for the 100M mark, I’m afraid when it gets to the 1M mark on that database it will shut down the cluster. More weirdness this afternoon : the wraparound ERROR showed up again even though I have trouble believing I burned through so many transactions in under a day. But let’s assume I did, here is what I noticed 1) I vacuumed all other databases. For everyone of those, the age went down to 50M instead of zero. Is that normal ? 2) The only database that didn’t work on was template0 (the age did not change). It did work on template1 Should I suspect something fishy going on ? Thanks -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
