| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gábor Farkas <gabor(at)nekomancer(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum, dead rows, usual solutions didn't help |
| Date: | 2008-01-10 09:51:34 |
| Message-ID: | 1199958694.4266.652.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 07:52 +0100, Gábor Farkas wrote:
> the remaining 3 were only idle-in-transaction at that point. so if i
> would keep checking for idle-in-transaction processes, the list of them
> would keep changing.
>
> are you saying, that a process should NEVER be idle-in-transaction? not
> even for a short time? (like some seconds?)
It's OK to be idle-in-transaction, but not OK for that state to last for
days.
> also, even if it is wrong, can an 'idle-in-transaction' connection that
> was opened today block the vacuuming of rows that were deleted yesterday?
Yes, if the rows were deleted after the connection started.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gábor Farkas | 2008-01-10 10:18:24 | Re: vacuum, dead rows, usual solutions didn't help |
| Previous Message | A. Kretschmer | 2008-01-10 08:20:19 | Re: Increase the number of concurrent connection |