Re: postgresql transaction id monitoring with nagios

From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>
To: Tony Wasson <ajwasson(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Vivek Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>, Pgsql performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: postgresql transaction id monitoring with nagios
Date: 2006-05-02 20:19:29
Message-ID: 20060502201928.GB14674@wolff.to
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 12:06:30 -0700,
Tony Wasson <ajwasson(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Ah thanks, it's a bug in my understanding of the thresholds.
>
> "With the standard freezing policy, the age column will start at one
> billion for a freshly-vacuumed database."
>
> So essentially, 1B is normal, 2B is the max. The logic is now..
>
> The script detects a wrap at 2 billion. It starts warning once one or
> more databases show an age over 1.5 billion transactions. It reports
> critical at 1.75B transactions.
>
> If anyone else understands differently, hit me with a clue bat.

Isn't this obsolete now anyway? I am pretty sure 8.1 has safeguards against
wrap around.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-05-02 20:27:52 Re: Why is plan (and performance) different on partitioned table?
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-05-02 20:17:41 Re: Why so slow?