From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt? |
Date: | 2000-05-04 20:04:34 |
Message-ID: | 28287.957470674@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> Hadn't thought of that ... but ... and you aren't going to like this
> ... if I delete/vacuum/insert/vacuum ... INDEX TUPLES increases by 1, HEAP
> increases by one ... I'm up to 3->4 now, and would go 4->5 if I were to do
> it again ...
That definitely sounds like VACUUM thinks there's an old open transaction
somewhere and so it doesn't want to clean out the dead tuples.
I believe we have a mechanism for deciding that an old transaction must
have aborted (it involves looking to see if any active backend claims to
be running that transaction). But I wonder whether that mechanism is
being used when VACUUM decides whether it can clean out a dead tuple or
not. Vadim?
> Don't know ... one of hte problems I'm having with my FreeBSD machine
> right now is that, for some reason, setproctitle() isn't working, so all
> my backends look the same 'postmaster' and its start up options :(
Now you know how the other half lives ;-).
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-05-04 21:13:18 | RE: pg_group_name_index corrupt? |
Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-05-04 19:43:17 | Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt? |