| From: | pginfo <pginfo(at)t1(dot)unisoftbg(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ragnar Hafstað <gnari(at)simnet(dot)is> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Richard_D_Levine(at)raytheon(dot)com, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg primary key bug? |
| Date: | 2005-02-22 11:49:15 |
| Message-ID: | 421B1C3B.1020803@t1.unisoftbg.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Ragnar Hafstað wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 10:33 +0100, pginfo wrote:
>
>
>>
>>We are using jdbc (jdbc driver from pg) + jboss (java based
>>application server) + connection pool (biult in jboss).
>>...
>>Will vacuum full generate this problem if we have locked table in this
>>time? (It is possible to have locked table in theory)
>>
>>
>
>I do not know if this is relevant, but I have seen jboss applications
>keep sessions in 'Idle in transaction' state, apparently with some
>locks granted. Would such cases not interfere with vacuum?
>
>gnari
>
>
>
Only to add,
also keeping sme transactions for long time not commited (possible).
regards,
ivan.
>
>
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ragnar Hafstað | 2005-02-22 11:52:42 | Re: pg primary key bug? |
| Previous Message | pginfo | 2005-02-22 09:33:51 | Re: pg primary key bug? |