From: | Tim Sailer <tps(at)unslept(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | |
Cc: | Tim Sailer <tps(at)unslept(dot)org>, "pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Strange Problem |
Date: | 2016-02-11 18:13:46 |
Message-ID: | 56BCCF5A.6030503@unslept.org |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
On 02/11/2016 09:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> writes:
>> There are 2 possibilities I can think of:
>> 1) The application which inserts the rows still has the transaction
>> open that inserted all the rows, and hasn't yet committed.
>> 2) A transaction is open, but another transaction has since deleted
>> all the rows and committed, and the open transaction still has
>> visibility of the rows, so they can't be cleaned up by a vacuum
>> process.
> "VACUUM VERBOSE <table>" would likely be informative. I don't think
> it will distinguish which of those things has happened, but it would
> confirm the idea that there are a bunch of not-visible-to-you rows.
>
> It might be a good idea to check for old prepared transactions, as
> well as old idle-in-transaction sessions.
>
> regards, tom lane
Ugh. I saw a slew of "suspending truncate due to conflicting lock
request" scroll up the screen, along with lines like "truncated 4928 to
1376 pages" all the say down to "truncated 1376 to 0 pages".
I'm guessing that my table is now empty for some reason. Sigh.
Tim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-11 18:55:51 | Re: Strange Problem |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-11 17:53:06 | Re: Strange Problem |