Re: Cluster "stuck" in "not accepting commands to avoid wraparound data loss"
| От | Jeff Janes |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Cluster "stuck" in "not accepting commands to avoid wraparound data loss" |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMkU=1zUEU+P3R9JRUQ8Sn=5iyO0L4acmF9eQdDk4_nc2X7Afg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Cluster "stuck" in "not accepting commands to avoid wraparound data loss" (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> Looking at datfrozenxid:
> postgres=# select datname, datfrozenxid, age(datfrozenxid) FROM pg_database ;
> datname | datfrozenxid | age
> -----------+--------------+-----------
> template1 | 3357685367 | 0
> template0 | 3357685367 | 0
> postgres | 3159867733 | 197817634
> (3 rows)
> reveals that the launcher doesn't do squat because it doesn't think it
> needs to do anything.
>
> (gdb) p *ShmemVariableCache
> $3 = {nextOid = 24576, oidCount = 0, nextXid = 3357685367, oldestXid = 1211201715, xidVacLimit = 1411201715,
xidWarnLimit= 3347685362,
> xidStopLimit = 3357685362, xidWrapLimit = 3358685362, oldestXidDB = 12380, oldestCommitTs = 0, newestCommitTs = 0,
> latestCompletedXid = 3357685366}
Do we know how template0 and template1 get frozen with xid which were
5 past the xidStopLimit? Is that part of the mystery here, or is that
normal?
Cheers,
Jeff
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: