Re: Problems Vacuum'ing

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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