From: | "Chris White (cjwhite)" <cjwhite(at)cisco(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Help understanding VACUUM info on 7.4.5 |
Date: | 2005-04-01 22:21:21 |
Message-ID: | 200504012221.j31MLLgS024313@sj-core-3.cisco.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Thanks, for the input.
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-admin-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-admin-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 1:49 PM
To: cjwhite(at)cisco(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Help understanding VACUUM info on 7.4.5
"Chris White \(cjwhite\)" <cjwhite(at)cisco(dot)com> writes:
> Does this mean it could be any transaction, even one that has not done
> anything with large objects, but one that started prior to the large
> objects being deleted?
Exactly.
> All access to the DB is done via JDBC, so has this JDBC issue been
> fixed in 7.4.5?
You'd have to ask the JDBC guys ...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-04-02 01:05:42 | Re: Can WE modify column of a table in postgres 7.3 |
Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2005-04-01 22:11:39 | Re: Disk Encryption - Postgresql vs. Oracle |