Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No one else is using the database. 161 was a value that was put into the row
> a LONG time ago. As far as we can figure it seems like postgres is
> continually rolling back a transaction which isn't taking place.
How long ago is "a LONG time"? More than 2 billion transactions,
perhaps? I'm wondering if you've got transaction-wraparound problems.
It would be interesting to look at the system columns for the row
(oid, ctid, xmin etc) and note whether they seem to change at the same
time as the data.
Is it *really* true that nothing else is using the database? I've never
seen or heard of a Postgres bug in which data appears to change when
"nothing is happening". Certainly no one else has had problems similar
to your report.
It might be worth running some memory diagnostics --- perhaps what's
really happening here is that RAM drops a bit after a period of time.
regards, tom lane
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
