Re: transaction id wraparound

["Jim C. Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>]

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(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)