Re: large table

From: Luke Coldiron <lukecoldiron(at)hotmail(dot)com>
To: John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: large table
Date: 2014-09-22 20:37:07
Message-ID: BAY179-W91EBF0DFCF5C4F31DAB69DC6B30@phx.gbl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:46:21 -0700
> From: pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com
> To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] large table
>
> 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.
>
Good point, I wasn't thinking about this as a possibility. This is a very good possibility considering the behavior of the rest of the system.
>
> --
> john r pierce 37N 122W
> somewhere on the middle of the left coast
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joel Avni 2014-09-22 20:42:38 Question about Vacuum and Replication failures in 9.3.5
Previous Message Bill Moran 2014-09-22 20:27:58 Re: large table