Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 07:13:36PM -0500, Jerry Sievers wrote: > >> Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > Is it possible that pg_upgrade used 50M xids while upgrading? >> >> Hi Bruce. >> >> Don't think so, as I did just snap the safety snap and ran another >> upgrade on that. >> >> And I also compared txid_current for the upgraded snap and our running >> production instance. >> >> The freshly upgraded snap is ~50M txids behind the prod instance. > > Are the objects 50M behind or is txid_current 50M different? Higher or > lower? txid_current is another 12M higher then a few hours ago. Still waiting to hear from my reporting team if they changed anything. This thing is running PgLogical and has a few of our event triggers as well. But nothing in this regard changed with the upgrade. What if some very frequent but trivial statements that did not get assigned a real TXID in 9.5 on this configuration now are being treated differently? What's puzzling too is that when I run my TPS monitor script, it's clicking along at what looks typical, presently would only amount to 700k transactions/day but we're off-peak. Thx > > >> >> If this is a not too uncommon case of users running amok, then this time >> in particular they really went off the charts :-) > > I have never heard of this problem. -- Jerry Sievers Postgres DBA/Development Consulting e: postgres.consulting@xxxxxxxxxxx p: 312.241.7800
