Re: 7.3.3 drop table takes very long time - Mailing list pgsql-general

I restarted Postgres and it dropped in a second or 2. I can't believe I
didn't think of trying that before.
Thanks for all the help.


>From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>To: Steve Crawford <scrawford@pinpointresearch.com>
>CC: Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com>, Eric Freeman <ejf7@hotmail.com>,
>pgsql-general@postgresql.org
>Subject: Re: [GENERAL] 7.3.3 drop table takes very long time Date: Thu, 08
>Jan 2004 16:26:32 -0500
>Received: from mc12-f8.hotmail.com ([65.54.167.144]) by mc12-s4.hotmail.com
>with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:31:21 -0800
>Received: from hosting.commandprompt.com ([207.173.200.216]) by
>mc12-f8.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Thu, 8 Jan 2004
>13:30:36 -0800
>Received: from postgresql.org (svr1.postgresql.org [200.46.204.71])by
>hosting.commandprompt.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i08LRZk29714;Thu, 8
>Jan 2004 13:28:14 -0800
>Received: from localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2])by
>svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20237D1B4AFfor
><pgsql-general-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>; Thu,  8 Jan 2004
>21:27:25 +0000 (GMT)
>Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost
>(neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id
>70015-01 for <pgsql-general-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>; Thu,
>8 Jan 2004 17:26:36 -0400 (AST)
>Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])by
>svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0509D1B48Afor
><pgsql-general@postgresql.org>; Thu,  8 Jan 2004 17:26:34 -0400 (AST)
>Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])by
>sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i08LQW19016036;Thu, 8 Jan
>2004 16:26:33 -0500 (EST)
>X-Message-Info: 820stLNiepTzJGdgouOWLmzTpS/lU6jjUO41cNhiU8g=
>X-Original-To: pgsql-general-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
>In-reply-to: <200401081306.23269.scrawford@pinpointresearch.com>
>References: <BAY99-F32kpDasYutu4000304b7@hotmail.com>
><11871.1073581548@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3FFD8FED.3000900@mascari.com>
><200401081306.23269.scrawford@pinpointresearch.com>
>Comments: In-reply-to Steve Crawford
><scrawford@pinpointresearch.com>message dated "Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:06:23
>-0800"
>Message-ID: <16035.1073597192@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org
>X-Mailing-List: pgsql-general
>Precedence: bulk
>Return-Path: pgsql-general-owner+M55362@postgresql.org
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jan 2004 21:30:36.0245 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[A76F8850:01C3D62E]
>
>Steve Crawford <scrawford@pinpointresearch.com> writes:
> > On Thursday 08 January 2004 9:14 am, Mike Mascari wrote:
> >> Is there any possibility that he's got an open transacation sitting
> >> out there for days holding a lock on that table?
>
> > Yesterday I had someone drop a table while a pg_dumpall was running.
> > The drop didn't complete till the dump was done.
>
>Yup, because pg_dump takes an AccessShareLock (reader's lock) on every
>table it intends to dump.  But the process wanting to drop the table
>would have been blocked on the lock, and would not have been chewing any
>CPU time while it waited.  Eric seems to be seeing something different.
>
>            regards, tom lane
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

_________________________________________________________________
Check your PC for viruses with the FREE McAfee online computer scan.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963