| From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Problems Vacuum'ing |
| Date: | 2004-04-03 02:45:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20040402184347.R40651@megazone.bigpanda.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 07:35:20PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > jseymour(at)LinxNet(dot)com (Jim Seymour) writes:
> > > Again the difference: With WebObjects running, deleting rows and
> > > trying to vacuum immediately, even full, fails. Shut-down WebObjects
> > > and I can.
> >
> > WebObjects is evidently holding an open transaction. Ergo, anything
> > deleted after the start of that transaction isn't vacuumable. You need
> > to do something about the client-side logic that is holding an open
> > transaction without doing anything ...
>
> But, if I read the code correctly, the oldest xmin vacuum cares about
> for a non-shared relation should be local to the database, shouldn't it?
AFAICS it's the oldest transaction at the start of any of the transactions
in this database, not the oldest transaction of any transaction in this
database.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Seymour | 2004-04-03 02:49:50 | Re: Problems Vacuum'ing |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-04-03 02:26:52 | Re: Function to kill backend |