Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 07:13:36PM -0500, Jerry Sievers wrote:
>
>> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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@comcast.net
p: 312.241.7800
