| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: VACUUM and transactions in different databases |
| Date: | 2006-12-07 16:28:30 |
| Message-ID: | 16006.1165508910@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com> writes:
> In response to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>:
>> Of course they are able to complete, but the point is that they would
>> not remove the tuples that would be visible to that idle open
>> transaction.
> I would expect that, but the OP claimed that vacuum full waited until
> the other transaction was finished.
No, she didn't claim that. As far as I see she was just complaining
about the failure to remove dead tuples:
> > > > If I have a running transaction in database1 and try to vacuum
> > > > database2 but the dead tuples in database2 cannot be removed.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Angva | 2006-12-07 16:38:06 | loading data, creating indexes, clustering, vacuum... |
| Previous Message | David Goodenough | 2006-12-07 16:19:13 | Performance figures from DbMail list |