Re: Vacuum and oldest xmin (again) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kuba Ouhrabka
Subject Re: Vacuum and oldest xmin (again)
Date
Msg-id cmdjh6$e4s$1@news.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Vacuum and oldest xmin (again)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Vacuum and oldest xmin (again)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List 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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: plans for bitmap indexes?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Vacuum and oldest xmin (again)