Re: Idle in transaction ???? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From wsheldah@lexmark.com
Subject Re: Idle in transaction ????
Date
Msg-id 200111161526.KAA27447@interlock2.lexmark.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Idle in transaction ????  ("Steve Brett" <steve.brett@e-mis.com>)
List pgsql-general

That sounds great.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Wes Sheldahl



Tom Lane <tgl%sss.pgh.pa.us@interlock.lexmark.com> on 11/15/2001 05:52:00 PM

To:   "Wesley_Sheldahl/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK"@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com
cc:   pgsql-general%postgresql.org@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: Wesley
      Sheldahl/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  Re: [GENERAL] Idle in transaction ????


wsheldah@lexmark.com writes:
> If vacuum in 7.2 skips tables it can't lock,

It does not.

The real change in 7.2 is that vacuum requires only an ordinary writer's
lock on the table, not exclusive lock.  Since a write lock doesn't
conflict with read or write locks (basically it only conflicts with
schema-changing operations) we expect that vacuum will run concurrently
with most ordinary database operations.

               regards, tom lane





pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Helge Bahmann
Date:
Subject: Re: Poor performance on SCSI machines, good on IDE?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Poor performance on SCSI machines, good on IDE?