Re: fighting '<IDLE> in transaction'

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.

I know. The OP is running 8.3. The advantage of 8.4 was, I think,
pointed out upstream, but I wouldn't bet on it one way or the other.

This is one of the very cool things about 8.4 that you can't measure
in a simple benchmark, but in everyday operation I'm sure it can make
a huge difference.