Re: Vacuum and oldest xmin (again)

From: Kuba Ouhrabka <kuba(at)comgate(dot)cz>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Vacuum and oldest xmin (again)
Date: 2004-11-04 15:57:28
Message-ID: cmdjh6$e4s$1@news.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

> I think it's most likely that there were also old transactions in the
> current database. Only the shared tables (pg_shadow, pg_database,
> pg_group) are vacuumed using a cutoff that depends on non-local
> transactions.

in my case, there are really no old transactions in current database.

> Looking at the back versions, it appears this logic was put in in 7.2;
> is it possible you are remembering the behavior of older versions?

And it's on 7.4...

The problem is fully described in thread I mentioned earlier, Tom's
excellent explanation can be found here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=cs&lr=&frame=right&th=5227028cb3449572&seekm=11390.1080964720%40sss.pgh.pa.us#link14

Kuba

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-11-04 16:19:12 Re: plans for bitmap indexes?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-11-04 15:48:09 Re: Vacuum and oldest xmin (again)