| From: | Michael Holzman <michaelholzman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "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 08:42:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAPNViJo0eRP10-e0VRVgzh2xPobay5FpY2z5OOSLS_-jtasVRg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
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.
--
Regards,
Michael Holzman
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2020-09-08 09:27:44 | Re: Autovacuum of independent tables |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-09-08 08:27:55 | Re: Autovacuum of independent tables |