Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: check point segments leakage ?

From: Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>
To: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
Cc: Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>,Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,"pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: check point segments leakage ?
Date: 2004-07-21 17:54:48
Message-ID: 1090432487.21450.31.camel@jester (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> I don't know why the 1st VACUUM FULL wasn't able to reclaim the same 
> amount of space as the 2nd one, but I would guess that it wasn't able to 
> get a lock on some table.  It could have been autovac if it was doing a 
> vacuum at that moment, but it could have been something else too.

Or there was a long running transaction in the background. The oldest
active transaction will place limits on what VACUUM can or cannot
remove.



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2004-07-21 18:12:08
Subject: parameter hints to the optimizer
Previous:From: Gaetano MendolaDate: 2004-07-21 16:45:45
Subject: Re: check point segments leakage ?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group