| From: | Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ben Chobot <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgresql General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: bgwriter and pg_locks |
| Date: | 2012-09-17 18:52:48 |
| Message-ID: | CA+mi_8a1WDd2ffqUftvpLEEHPA1dftqEntM6HvO5hyMh6mQhtg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Ben Chobot <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com> wrote:
> In an attempt to get a hackfix for http://pgfoundry.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1011203&group_id=1000411&atid=1376, I'm wonder if it's true that, when looking at pg_locks, the only pid which will have virtualxid = '1/1' and virtualtransaction = '-1/0' will be the bgwriter. That seems correct on all my dbs, but that's hardly a definitive test.
Just stumbled upon the same issue. You got no reply here... maybe it's
worth contacting -hackers about it. I've tried googling around and
found no discussion about the bgwriter keeping that lock, except your
message.
Good luck, cheers!
-- Daniele
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | niXman | 2012-09-17 18:58:30 | Official C++ API for postgresql? |
| Previous Message | Dann Corbit | 2012-09-17 17:59:55 | Re: Slow counting still true? |