From: | Andreas Schmitz <a(dot)schmitz(at)cityweb(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | daniel alvarez <d-alvarez(at)gmx(dot)de>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Still a bug in the VACUUM ??? !!! |
Date: | 2003-02-17 20:42:11 |
Message-ID: | 200302172142.11697.a.schmitz@cityweb.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
On Monday 17 February 2003 19:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andreas Schmitz <a(dot)schmitz(at)cityweb(dot)de> writes:
> > I think it is not the same. When I ran the vaccum when no other clients
> > whe= re=20
> > connected to the database.
>
> The vacuum that reports the NOTICEs is not the one that created the
> problem. The scenario I was talking about requires concurrent clients
> during the preceding vacuum.
>
> regards, tom lane
Hi,
ok. I got that one. I was able to reproduce it. but it still doesn't solve the
problem. fact is that I loose data and that is a big problem.
regards
-andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Benedetto | 2003-02-17 21:19:26 | data-time type |
Previous Message | Bjrn Metzdorf | 2003-02-17 20:30:58 | Re: FATAL 2: open of /usr/local/pgsql/data/pg_clog/0943 failed |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-02-17 20:44:43 | Re: COUNT and Performance ... |
Previous Message | mlw | 2003-02-17 20:25:47 | Yet another configuration patch with include, and configuration dir |