Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 12:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: jim_yates <pg@wg5jim.net>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Message-ID: <1412797415000-5822268.post@n5.nabble.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141008185538.GY7043@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org>
References: <1412791213607-5822248.post@n5.nabble.com>
 <20141008185538.GY7043@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org>
Subject: Re: could not access status of transaction pg_multixact issue
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org

Adrian, the query for the 0000 removal returns f.

Alvaro, Yes the pg_upgrade was done with 9.3.4.  Following the bug #11264
you referenced:

select datname, datfrozenxid, datminmxid from pg_database;

   datname    | datfrozenxid | datminmxid 
--------------+--------------+------------
acustream    |         1799 |          1


> A better way not involving mxid_age() would be to use pg_controldata to
> extract the current value of the mxid counter, then subtract the current
> relminmxid from that value.


It's not clear which lines from pg_controldata to use for updating
pg_database.datminmxid.

I also assume I would do the pg_database update on a idle database.


--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/could-not-access-status-of-transaction-pg-multixact-issue-tp5822248p5822268.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - sql mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql