On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> "Charles.Hou" wrote:
>
>> my postgresql version is 8.1.3
>
> Ouch! That's getting pretty old; I hope it's not on Windows.
>
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_Release_Support_Policy
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.865
>
"Charles.Hou" wrote:
> my postgresql version is 8.1.3
Ouch! That's getting pretty old; I hope it's not on Windows.
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_Release_Support_Policy
http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.865
> you means the newer version has a virtual transaction ID. and
>
On 1月20日, 上午6時46分, g...@2ndquadrant.com (Greg Smith) wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > Or just test it in psql. BEGIN, run your query, look at pg_locks.
> > If an xid has been assigned, you'll see it there in the
> > transactionid column. You can easily satisfy yourself which
> > statements grab
On 1月19日, 下午10時39分, kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov ("Kevin Grittner")
wrote:
> Filip Rembia*kowski wrote:
> > 2011/1/19 Charles.Hou :
> >> " select * from mybook" SQL command also increase the XID ?
>
> > Yes. Single SELECT is a transaction. Hence, it needs a transaction
> > ID.
>
> No, not in recent
Kevin Grittner wrote:
Or just test it in psql. BEGIN, run your query, look at pg_locks.
If an xid has been assigned, you'll see it there in the
transactionid column. You can easily satisfy yourself which
statements grab an xid...
That's a good way to double-check exactly what's happening, bu
Andres Freund wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2011 07:06:58 PM Chris Browne wrote:
>> A read-only transaction won't consume XIDs, but if you don't
>> expressly declare it read-only, they're still liable to get
>> eaten...
> No. The Xid is generally only allocated at the first place a real
> x
On Wednesday, January 19, 2011 07:06:58 PM Chris Browne wrote:
> kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov ("Kevin Grittner") writes:
> > Filip Rembia*kowski wrote:
> >> 2011/1/19 Charles.Hou :
> >>> " select * from mybook" SQL command also increase the XID ?
> >>
> >> Yes. Single SELECT is a transaction. Hence
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov ("Kevin Grittner") writes:
> Filip Rembia*kowski wrote:
>> 2011/1/19 Charles.Hou :
>
>>> " select * from mybook" SQL command also increase the XID ?
>>
>> Yes. Single SELECT is a transaction. Hence, it needs a transaction
>> ID.
>
> No, not in recent versions of Po
Filip Rembia*kowski wrote:
> 2011/1/19 Charles.Hou :
>> " select * from mybook" SQL command also increase the XID ?
>
> Yes. Single SELECT is a transaction. Hence, it needs a transaction
> ID.
No, not in recent versions of PostgreSQL. There's virtual
transaction ID, too; which is all that's
2011/1/19 Charles.Hou :
> what's the definetion of XID?
XID == "Transaction ID".
> " select * from mybook" SQL command also increase the XID ?
Yes. Single SELECT is a transaction. Hence, it needs a transaction ID.
greets,
Filip
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@po
On 1月19日, 下午5時19分, "Charles.Hou" wrote:
> after i backdb->dropdb->restoredb and then vacuum analy+full -> vacuum
> freeze
>
> the XID had been increased by 4 billion in two weeks...is it noraml?
>
> what's the definetion of XID?
>
> " select * from mybook" SQL command also increase the XID ?
>
> r
11 matches
Mail list logo