Re: postgres 8.2.9 can't drop database in single user mode

yes - how do i get rid of these??

backend> select * from pg_prepared_xacts;
2009-04-22 07:43:27.421 EDT [11767] [] WARNING: database "ange" must
be vacuumed within 976080 transactions
2009-04-22 07:43:27.421 EDT [11767] [] HINT: To avoid a database
shutdown, execute a full-database VACUUM in "ange".
1: transaction (typeid = 28, len = 4, typmod = -1, byval = t)
2: gid (typeid = 25, len = -1, typmod = -1, byval = f)
3: prepared (typeid = 1184, len = 8, typmod = -1, byval = f)
4: owner (typeid = 19, len = 64, typmod = -1, byval = f)
5: database (typeid = 19, len = 64, typmod = -1, byval = f)
----
1: transaction = "339484494" (typeid = 28, len = 4, typmod = -1,
byval = t)
2: gid = "257_cGMwNzQvNjAyNA==_MQ==" (typeid = 25, len = -1,
typmod = -1, byval = f)
3: prepared = "2008-07-09 19:34:32.803537-04" (typeid = 1184,
len = 8, typmod = -1, byval = f)
4: owner = "webaskin" (typeid = 19, len = 64, typmod = -1, byval
= f)
5: database = "walt_ange" (typeid = 19, len = 64, typmod = -1,
byval = f)
----
1: transaction = "1017044215" (typeid = 28, len = 4, typmod =
-1, byval = t)
2: gid = "257_bHJjMjAwNjExNjkyLzUwNTg=_MQ==" (typeid = 25, len =
-1, typmod = -1, byval = f)
3: prepared = "2008-11-12 17:30:52.363215-05" (typeid = 1184,
len = 8, typmod = -1, byval = f)
4: owner = "scoogan" (typeid = 19, len = 64, typmod = -1, byval = f)
5: database = "scoogan_userprofile_1.2" (typeid = 19, len = 64,
typmod = -1, byval = f)
----
1: transaction = "1543806025" (typeid = 28, len = 4, typmod =
-1, byval = t)
2: gid = "257_bHJjMjAwNjExNjkxLzIwOTQ=_Mg==" (typeid = 25, len =
-1, typmod = -1, byval = f)
3: prepared = "2009-02-18 13:51:43.485558-05" (typeid = 1184,
len = 8, typmod = -1, byval = f)
4: owner = "bruno" (typeid = 19, len = 64, typmod = -1, byval = f)
5: database = "bruno_userProfile_1_2" (typeid = 19, len = 64,
typmod = -1, byval = f)
----
backend>

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Maria L. Wilson" <Maria(dot)L(dot)Wilson-1(at)nasa(dot)gov> writes:
>
>> i'm getting the following error..... any ideas why this would be in
>> single user mode??
>>
>
> Maybe you've got some prepared transactions laying about?
> Check pg_prepared_xacts ...
>
> regards, tom lane
>