On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 19:20 +0100, Csaba Nagy wrote: > On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 19:12, Rod Taylor wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 12:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > I watch for table bloat but I haven't figured out a nice way of tracking > > > > down the postgresql process with the oldest transaction running short of > > > > patching PostgreSQL to report the XID for a connection in > > > > pg_stat_activity. > > But I'm afraid that a long running transaction with many short queries > will not even show up in pg_stat_activity. So that's not a completely > reliable way of catching long running transactions... but it's true that > most of the time a long running query is the problem, and that is > catchable.
The specific query may not show up but the process should appear in one state or another. That said, pg_locks would still show low XID (compared to the rest) exists and that would probably be the culprit. -- ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
