On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 19:20 +0100, Csaba Nagy wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 19:12, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 12:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Rod Taylor <pg@rbt.ca> writes:
> > > > I watch for table bloat but I haven't figured out a nice way of tracking
> > > > down the postgresql process with the oldest transaction running short of
> > > > patching PostgreSQL to report the XID for a connection in
> > > > pg_stat_activity.
>
> But I'm afraid that a long running transaction with many short queries
> will not even show up in pg_stat_activity. So that's not a completely
> reliable way of catching long running transactions... but it's true that
> most of the time a long running query is the problem, and that is
> catchable.
The specific query may not show up but the process should appear in one
state or another.
That said, pg_locks would still show low XID (compared to the rest)
exists and that would probably be the culprit.
--