Re: Problems Vacuum'ing

jseymour(at)LinxNet(dot)com (Jim Seymour) writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> WebObjects is evidently holding an open transaction.

> It certainly isn't holding open a transaction in the database I'm
> working with.

Which database the transaction is in isn't real relevant... the logic is
done globally so that it will be correct when vacuuming shared tables.

> It's unclear to me it's holding any transaction open,
> anywhere.

Sure it is, assuming that PID 18020 is the session we're talking about.

> postgres=# select * from pg_locks where transaction is not null;
> relation | database | transaction | pid | mode | granted
> ----------+----------+-------------+-------+---------------+---------
> | | 1245358 | 18020 | ExclusiveLock | t
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This process has an open transaction number 1245358. That's what an
exclusive lock on a transaction means.

> 17142 | postgres | 267 | 1 | postgres | |
> 17144 | qantel | 18020 | 103 | webobjects | |

These entries didn't make a lot of sense to me since the other examples
you mentioned did not seem to be getting executed in the 'postgres'
database --- but I assume PID 18020 is the one you are referring to as
webobjects.

regards, tom lane