From: | "Chris White (cjwhite)" <cjwhite(at)cisco(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Help understanding VACUUM info on 7.4.5 |
Date: | 2005-04-01 21:23:52 |
Message-ID: | 200504012123.j31LNpgS000922@sj-core-3.cisco.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Does this mean it could be any transaction, even one that has not done
anything with large objects, but one that started prior to the large objects
being deleted?
All access to the DB is done via JDBC, so has this JDBC issue been fixed in
7.4.5?
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-admin-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-admin-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 1:07 PM
To: cjwhite(at)cisco(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Help understanding VACUUM info on 7.4.5
"Chris White (cjwhite)" <cjwhite(at)cisco(dot)com> writes:
> Below I have info which shows a DB which has had all objects deleted
> and then vacuumed. As can been seen it say it has "9014 dead rows that
> can't been removed". What does that mean?
That means there's an open transaction that is old enough to be able to see
those rows under MVCC rules, so VACUUM dare not remove them.
Check for clients that are issuing a BEGIN and then sitting with the
transaction open. Older versions of JDBC did that behind your back, IIRC.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joseph Brenner | 2005-04-01 21:43:01 | Disk Encryption - Postgresql vs. Oracle |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-01 21:06:38 | Re: Help understanding VACUUM info on 7.4.5 |