| From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pginfo <pginfo(at)t1(dot)unisoftbg(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Antonis Antoniou <a(dot)antoniou(at)albourne(dot)com>, "'pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum full problem |
| Date: | 2003-11-11 19:25:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20031111112017.Y68508@megazone.bigpanda.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, pginfo wrote:
> > > It is possible to be one not closed transaction, but in this case nobody will be
> > > able to modify this table (tables) and
> > > the system will stop to respond. The paradox is that the system works well without
> >
> > Not necessarily. People are going to be able to insert/update/delete from
> > the tables (the locks are AccessShareLock) because those don't get a
> > conflicting table lock. They're not going to be able to do things like
> > vacuum full or alter table however because those do.
> >
>
> Can you point me to any place in docs to read more detailed about locks and statistic (
> I have idea, butt also I will to know more if possible).
Well, for a list of the lock levels and some examples of where they're
used you might want to see:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.3/static/explicit-locking.html
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff | 2003-11-11 19:49:54 | Re: Upgrading to Solaris 9 |
| Previous Message | mendola | 2003-11-11 19:03:10 | cancel <3FB12A96.9090401@bigfoot.com> |