| From: | Doug McNaught <doug(at)wireboard(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Mike Cianflone <mcianflone(at)littlefeet-inc(dot)com>, "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is there a problem running vacuum in the middle of a transaction? |
| Date: | 2001-09-06 12:39:27 |
| Message-ID: | m366awlchs.fsf@belphigor.mcnaught.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Doug McNaught <doug(at)wireboard(dot)com> writes:
> > Hmmm--AFAIK, VACUUM is supposed to grab locks on the tables it
> > processes, which will block until all open transactions against that
> > table are finished. So either VACUUM or your transactions will have
> > to wait, but they shouldn't interfere with each other.
>
> Upshot: a client holding an open transaction, plus another client trying
> to do VACUUM, can clog up the database for everyone else.
Thanks for the clarification. But the original poster's problem, that
VACUUM caused his transactions to fail, theoretically shouldn't
happen--right?
-Doug
--
Free Dmitry Sklyarov!
http://www.freesklyarov.org/
We will return to our regularly scheduled signature shortly.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | tomas | 2001-09-06 13:15:26 | Conditional NOTIFY is not implemented |
| Previous Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 2001-09-06 12:33:22 | Re: Log rotation? |