Re: Closing inactive connections OR user connections limits

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Medi Montaseri wrote:

> Its my understanding that vacuum actually removes tuples that have been
> updated or deleted.
> Sort of like emptying your trash .... whence a tuple has been removed,
> no rollback can set the
> state back. If you have logically removed a tuple (not vacuumed yet),
> then one can rollback,
> but if you vacuum then you can not rollback.
>
> Now suppose transaction A decides to delete some tuples, a vacuum job
> comes along and
> deletes things (in parallel), trans A decides to rollback....engines who
> support parallel
> vacuum-ing and transactions such as PG 7.2 better have a way of
> protecting themselves
> against this....
>
> Correct me if ...

Yes, you are wrong. Postgresql's vacuuming does NOT free tuples that are
still in a transaction, hence a full vacuum will hand waiting for the
transaction to complete or roll back. A normal 7.2 vacuum will simply
skip the in transaction tuples.

For proof, try this: (Note A> and B> are used to represent two different
sessions)

A> create table test (a text, id int);
A> insert into test (a,id) values ('abc',123);
A> begin;
A> delete from test where id=123;
B> vacuum;
A> rollback;
A> select * from test;
a | id
--------
abc| 123

Still there.

>
> Neil Conway wrote:
>
> >Medi Montaseri <medi(dot)montaseri(at)intransa(dot)com> writes:
> >
> >
> >>I think from the data integrity point of view, vacuum is more
> >>important than vacuum full.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Why would VACUUM have any effect on data integrity, either positive or
> >negative?
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Neil
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>