Re: Persistent dead rows

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
Cc: Malcolm McLean <MalcolmM(at)Interpharm(dot)co(dot)za>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Persistent dead rows
Date: 2007-02-08 14:42:09
Message-ID: 7436.1170945729@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> writes:
> Well, both cluster and vacuum full will require a lock on the table. But
> they're more or less doing the same thing, so why the one should work
> and the other not I don't know.

CLUSTER isn't MVCC-safe --- it'll drop rows that are committed dead
even if they are potentially still visible to some open transaction.
The OP has *clearly* got an open-transaction problem.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ged 2007-02-08 15:01:17 Re: Array OUT columns in a record returned from a function - part deux
Previous Message Andrus 2007-02-08 12:52:53 Error on table insert: attribute 13 has wrong type