| From: | David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Question about Idle in TX |
| Date: | 2010-08-03 20:02:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20100803200216.GA55696@mr-paradox.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 03:57:27PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
- David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net> writes:
- > On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 03:49:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
- > - In recent versions of PG, no. Before about 8.3 it was a Really Bad Idea,
- > - because the open transaction would prevent VACUUM from reclaiming storage.
-
- > We're on 8.3.9, so hopefully it's fairly safe then?
-
- Should be. You might want to test it just to make sure I'm recalling
- correctly when that got fixed. Do a BEGIN in one session, then in
- another session insert and delete some rows in a table, then VACUUM
- VERBOSE and see if they get cleaned up.
-
- regards, tom lane
-
Ah yeah, good idea. I'll give it a shot. thanks!
Dave
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Timothy Garnett | 2010-08-03 20:03:59 | When can postgresql use a partial (NOT NULL) index? Seems to depend on size of IN clause (even with enable seqscan = off) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-03 19:57:27 | Re: Question about Idle in TX |