From: | Ragnar <gnari(at)hive(dot)is> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: VACUUM and transactions in different databases |
Date: | 2006-12-07 16:56:53 |
Message-ID: | 1165510613.379.31.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On fim, 2006-12-07 at 11:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com> writes:
> > In response to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>:
> >> Of course they are able to complete, but the point is that they would
> >> not remove the tuples that would be visible to that idle open
> >> transaction.
>
> > I would expect that, but the OP claimed that vacuum full waited until
> > the other transaction was finished.
>
> No, she didn't claim that. As far as I see she was just complaining
> about the failure to remove dead tuples:
>
> > > > > If I have a running transaction in database1 and try to vacuum
> > > > > database2 but the dead tuples in database2 cannot be removed.
well actually, there was also this:
On fim, 2006-12-07 at 00:57 +0100, Cornelia Boenigk wrote:
> Hi Bill
>
> > Can you run a "vacuum
> > full", and does it reclaim the space?
>
> I tried but it hangs.
and also this:
On fim, 2006-12-07 at 01:03 +0100, Cornelia Boenigk wrote:
>
> as soon as I committed the open transaction the hangig vacuum full
> completed and the table was vacuumed:
gnari
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zoltan Boszormenyi | 2006-12-07 17:01:13 | Re: Internal function call from C-language function |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-07 16:56:20 | Re: VACUUM and transactions in different databases |