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

Re: Is there a problem running vacuum in the middle of a transaction?

From: Doug McNaught <doug(at)wireboard(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Mike Cianflone <mcianflone(at)littlefeet-inc(dot)com>, "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is there a problem running vacuum in the middle of a transaction?
Date: 2001-09-06 12:39:27
Message-ID: m366awlchs.fsf@belphigor.mcnaught.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> Doug McNaught <doug(at)wireboard(dot)com> writes:
> > Hmmm--AFAIK, VACUUM is supposed to grab locks on the tables it
> > processes, which will block until all open transactions against that
> > table are finished.  So either VACUUM or your transactions will have
> > to wait, but they shouldn't interfere with each other. 
> 
> Upshot: a client holding an open transaction, plus another client trying
> to do VACUUM, can clog up the database for everyone else.

Thanks for the clarification.  But the original poster's problem, that 
VACUUM caused his transactions to fail, theoretically shouldn't
happen--right?

-Doug
-- 
Free Dmitry Sklyarov! 
http://www.freesklyarov.org/ 

We will return to our regularly scheduled signature shortly.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: tomasDate: 2001-09-06 13:15:26
Subject: Conditional NOTIFY is not implemented
Previous:From: D'Arcy J.M. CainDate: 2001-09-06 12:33:22
Subject: Re: Log rotation?

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