Thread: Vacuum Error - Relation Deleted while still in use

Vacuum Error - Relation Deleted while still in use

From
"Thorne, Francis"
Date:

Hi all,

Any help on the following would be greatly appreciated,  every evening most of the data on our postgres 8.1 install is deleted and then a new set of data is imported into the database (around 100 million row).  After this takes place we run a Vacuum Analyse on the whole database.

Last night I got the error

Error Relation 41036649 deleted while still in use

There are other queries running on the database at the time of the Vaccum but I was under the impression a Vacuum Analyse only removes deleted / unused tuples etc.  Is this not correct ?

Is there anyway I can see what relation 41036649 was before it was deleted

Thanks for all the help

Francis
___________________________________________________

This email is intended for the named recipient. The information contained
in it is confidential. You should not copy it for any purposes, nor
disclose its contents to any other party. If you received this email
in error, please notify the sender immediately via email, and delete
it from your computer.

Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of the company.

Cromwell Tools Limited, PO Box 14, 65 Chartwell Drive
Wigston, Leicester LE18 1AT. Tel 0116 2888000
Registered in England and Wales, Reg No 00986161
VAT GB 115 5713 87 900
__________________________________________________

Re: Vacuum Error - Relation Deleted while still in use

From
Tom Lane
Date:
"Thorne, Francis" <thornef@cromwell.co.uk> writes:
> Last night I got the error
> Error Relation 41036649 deleted while still in use

This is not particularly surprising in 8.1 --- it has some race
conditions that can result in that type of error if vacuum (or anything
else) tries to open a table just as something else is deleting it.
We fixed that around 8.2, but it's really just a cosmetic issue
(you'd rather the message was "relation foo does not exist" ...)
I don't see any reason to worry.

            regards, tom lane