Re: pg primary key bug?

From: Ragnar Hafstað <gnari(at)simnet(dot)is>
To: pginfo <pginfo(at)t1(dot)unisoftbg(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Richard_D_Levine(at)raytheon(dot)com, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg primary key bug?
Date: 2005-02-22 11:52:42
Message-ID: 1109073162.17839.124.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-sql

On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 10:33 +0100, pginfo wrote:
>
>
> We are using jdbc (jdbc driver from pg) + jboss (java based
> application server) + connection pool (biult in jboss).
> ...
> Will vacuum full generate this problem if we have locked table in this
> time? (It is possible to have locked table in theory)

I do not know if this is relevant, but I have seen jboss applications
keep sessions in 'Idle in transaction' state, apparently with some
locks granted. Would such cases not interfere with vacuum?

gnari

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Garry 2005-02-22 13:01:50 problem inserting local characters ...
Previous Message pginfo 2005-02-22 11:49:15 Re: pg primary key bug?