| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Problems Vacuum'ing |
| Date: | 2004-04-03 01:44:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20040403014407.GA1993@dcc.uchile.cl |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
If this is so, why does it matter that he has open transaction on a
different database?
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
www.google.com: interfaz de línea de comando para la web.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2004-04-03 02:22:28 | Re: Inconsistent behavior on Array & Is Null? |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2004-04-03 01:18:59 | Re: Better support for whole-row operations and composite |