| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Holzman <michaelholzman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org >> PG-General Mailing List" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum of independent tables |
| Date: | 2020-09-08 09:27:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRCH_P5YJZaLad1kTw-boGd=PGhY73BR=awLqpGtw3=0zg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
út 8. 9. 2020 v 10:42 odesílatel Michael Holzman <michaelholzman(at)gmail(dot)com>
napsal:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 11:28 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>>
>> This is called MVCC, which applies to a session as a whole. The point
>> here is that even if your application knows that only tableA is used
>> by a given transaction, Postgres cannot know that, as it could be
>> possible that data from tableB is needed in this same transaction, so
>> old versions of the rows from tableB matching with the snapshot hold
>> by this long-running transaction still have to be around.
>>
>> Yes, I thought so. I just hoped there may be a workaround decoupling the
> tables.
> Thanks.
>
You can try to reduce length of transactions, if possible.
Regards
Pavel
>
> --
> Regards,
> Michael Holzman
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Holzman | 2020-09-08 10:13:14 | Re: Autovacuum of independent tables |
| Previous Message | Michael Holzman | 2020-09-08 08:42:44 | Re: Autovacuum of independent tables |