On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 08:29:06PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > 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? Uh, here is a report of a similar problem from March 6, 2018: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/C44C73BC-6B3A-42E0-9E44-6CE4E5B5D601%40ebureau.com#C44C73BC-6B3A-42E0-9E44-6CE4E5B5D601@xxxxxxxxxxx I upgraded a very large database from 9.6 to 10.1 via pg_upgrade recently, and ever since, the auto vacuum has been busy on a large legacy table that has experienced no changes since the upgrade. If the whole table had been frozen prior to the upgrade, would you expect it to stay frozen? It sure smells like we have a bug here. Could this be statistics collection instead? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
