Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BBB3632E00 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:02:28 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 67495-10 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:02:24 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com (yx-out-2324.google.com [74.125.44.28]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D8F36327D9 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:02:24 -0400 (AST) Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 3so704660yxj.73 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:02:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=uE+wyTyzwyogLvse66HA44he5R57uToYtQGZvlWfOIQ=; b=YY3Omx+UYC6+kle+PBOiLkx0sx1AJZLuW2cOv5VioI9rmwhewjNI6g7cWCkE2c5L7v TtQ9tLPfYlbZeivLvoeva2i/5lmQlmDGBXSWoNwBXn3XqvwY0TsqprzsOBFxgu2Ph3O5 txR9OmmAe8l5uruUGIpJbZkRIrPxkFfhgtjgg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=RM+jK+g0N6Mg4+s2yo8Z9qgqo2ysiycUoW7UhEZhvSqvOglIhlQzMI8cryDPc9/Roh Y3S9d7dRhgERi5jWufdBx2BU+l0Ee5kWdyDy7acwmTQmryquYq69p2tqj46MqMS7qC2A SG0UqV79xqi6LEVvVcyzd9nzT58YXvT+c7PDo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.151.6.16 with SMTP id j16mr3684816ybi.47.1235728943311; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:02:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <93739F94E0F3BA43AD72423E2482341AE064BD@sw-rz010.gsf.de> References: <93739F94E0F3BA43AD72423E2482341AE064B7@sw-rz010.gsf.de> <93739F94E0F3BA43AD72423E2482341AE064BD@sw-rz010.gsf.de> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 03:02:23 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Question to transaction ID wraparound From: Scott Marlowe To: "Lentes, Bernd" Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200902/256 X-Sequence-Number: 31477 On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Lentes, Bernd wrote: > > > > > Scott Marlowe wrote: >> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Scott Marlowe [mailto:scott.marlowe@gmail.com] >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2009 18:18 >> An: Lentes, Bernd >> Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org >> Betreff: Re: [ADMIN] Question to transaction ID wraparound >> >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Lentes, Bernd >> wrote: >> > Hello ML, >> > >> > I'm very new to Postgres. >> > In the log, i got messages concerning transaction ID wraparound. >> >> What exact message did you get? >> > The message is in german: > Grenze f=FCr Transaktionsnummern=FCberlauf ist 1133954883, begrenzt durch= Datenbank "genetrap" > I try to translate: > transaction ID wrap limit is 113..., limited by database "genetrap" That's more an information message than something to get worried about. It means that you can perform 1.13Billion transactions before things have to get vacuumed to prevent wrap around. If it says 1M or something, then start worrying. and the db will emit warnings and such at that point.