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

Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full)

From: Rainer Pruy <Rainer(dot)Pruy(at)Acrys(dot)COM>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full)
Date: 2011-03-28 14:28:54
Message-ID: 4D909B26.4080908@acrys.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Fascinating.
No real idea.
I just hit "reply to list" on a message from tom (probably a reply to a
message from you?).
So from earlier experience with such operations, I would not have
expected to not show up as sender or from of the message.

So yes it was me posting and I have no idea on what actually caused a
false from to end up there.....

Rainer

Am 28.03.2011 16:05, schrieb Alvaro Herrera:
> Rainer, any idea?  Please see
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4D906269.6060109@commandprompt.com
>
>
> Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of lun mar 28 11:03:16 -0300 2011:
>> Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of lun mar 28 07:26:49 -0300 2011:
>>> Likely "too large" is more an issue related to available resources than
>>> of absolute figure.
>>>
>>> On a penta byte of free storage I would not mind allocating some teras
>>> with extending a (large) table.
>>> If I'm left with some MB only, I'd be concerned for sure.
>> ...
>>
>> Does anybody have an idea just W-T-F happened here?  I did NOT send the
>> above email (as evidenced by it being signed by "Rainer").  I notice it
>> even has a "@commandprompt.com" message-id.  Should I start signing my
>> email?
>>

In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Rainer PruyDate: 2011-03-28 14:31:35
Subject: Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full)
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2011-03-28 14:05:36
Subject: Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full)

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