| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Vladimir Rusinov <vladimir(at)greenmice(dot)info>, Lewis Kapell <lkapell(at)setonhome(dot)org>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: fighting '<IDLE> in transaction' |
| Date: | 2009-11-05 17:57:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20091105175752.GJ3694@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Scott Marlowe escribió:
> The real issue with idle in transaction isn't locking so much. A
> simple idle in transaction that just ran a select * from table limit
> 1; will have made it so that vacuum cannot reclaim space that it
> normally could until that transaction is committed or rolled back.
That's not a problem in 8.4 either, because when the select finishes the
snapshot is deleted and vacuum knows that it can remove those tuples.
That's what we have the new snapshot management module for.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-11-05 18:08:59 | Re: fighting '<IDLE> in transaction' |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-11-05 17:53:59 | Re: fighting '<IDLE> in transaction' |