From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Vladimir Rusinov <vladimir(at)greenmice(dot)info>, Lewis Kapell <lkapell(at)setonhome(dot)org>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: fighting '<IDLE> in transaction' |
Date: | 2009-11-05 18:08:59 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10911051008k708b01dfnfd7c1a33ffd28842@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Scott Marlowe escribió:
>
>> The real issue with idle in transaction isn't locking so much. A
>> simple idle in transaction that just ran a select * from table limit
>> 1; will have made it so that vacuum cannot reclaim space that it
>> normally could until that transaction is committed or rolled back.
>
> That's not a problem in 8.4 either, because when the select finishes the
> snapshot is deleted and vacuum knows that it can remove those tuples.
> That's what we have the new snapshot management module for.
I know. The OP is running 8.3. The advantage of 8.4 was, I think,
pointed out upstream, but I wouldn't bet on it one way or the other.
This is one of the very cool things about 8.4 that you can't measure
in a simple benchmark, but in everyday operation I'm sure it can make
a huge difference.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Isabella | 2009-11-05 20:52:24 | functions details |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-11-05 17:57:52 | Re: fighting '<IDLE> in transaction' |