| From: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: large table |
| Date: | 2014-09-22 19:46:21 |
| Message-ID: | 54207C8D.5050707@hogranch.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 9/22/2014 12:33 PM, Luke Coldiron wrote:
>
> It is possible and that is part of what I am trying to discover
> however I am very familiar with the system / code base and in this
> case there is a single process updating the timestamp and a single
> process reading the timestamp. There are no other user processes
> programmed to interact with this table outside of potentially what
> Postgres is doing.
ANY other connection to the same postgres server, even to a different
database, that has an open long running transaction (most frequently,
"Idle In Transaction") will block autovacuum from marking the old tuples
as reusable.
--
john r pierce 37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Eduardo Morras | 2014-09-22 19:47:01 | Re: large table |
| Previous Message | Luke Coldiron | 2014-09-22 19:33:46 | Re: large table |