pg.ddx.io pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive help / color / mirror / Atom feed From: Dave Crooke <dcrooke@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Followup: vacuum'ing toast
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:52:17 -0600
Message-ID: <ca24673e0911041552k70b4af34k6f689ab116fc8752@mail.gmail.com> (raw )
Thanks folks for the quick replies.
1. There is one transaction, connected from the JVM, that is showing
"IDLE in transaction" .... this appears to be a leftover from
Hibernate looking at the schema metadata. It's Apache Jackrabbit, not
our own code:
hyper9test_1_6=# select c.relname, l.* from pg_class c, pg_locks l
where c.relfilenode=l.relation and l.pid in (select procpid from
pg_stat_activity where current_query='<IDLE> in transaction');
relname | locktype | database | relation | page |
tuple | virtualxid | transactionid | classid | objid | objsubid |
virtualtransaction | pid | mode | granted
----------------------------+----------+----------+----------+------+-------+------------+---------------+---------+-------+----------+--------------------+------+-----------------+---------
pg_class_oid_index | relation | 280066 | 2662 | |
| | | | | | 3/18
| 8069 | AccessShareLock | t
pg_class_relname_nsp_index | relation | 280066 | 2663 | |
| | | | | | 3/18
| 8069 | AccessShareLock | t
pg_description_o_c_o_index | relation | 280066 | 2675 | |
| | | | | | 3/18
| 8069 | AccessShareLock | t
pg_namespace_nspname_index | relation | 280066 | 2684 | |
| | | | | | 3/18
| 8069 | AccessShareLock | t
pg_namespace_oid_index | relation | 280066 | 2685 | |
| | | | | | 3/18
| 8069 | AccessShareLock | t
pg_class | relation | 280066 | 1259 | |
| | | | | | 3/18
| 8069 | AccessShareLock | t
pg_description | relation | 280066 | 2609 | |
| | | | | | 3/18
| 8069 | AccessShareLock | t
pg_namespace | relation | 280066 | 2615 | |
| | | | | | 3/18
| 8069 | AccessShareLock | t
version_node | relation | 280066 | 493309 | |
| | | | | | 3/18
| 8069 | AccessShareLock | t
version_node_idx | relation | 280066 | 493315 | |
| | | | | | 3/18
| 8069 | AccessShareLock | t
(10 rows)
Since the Jackrabbit tables are in the same namespace / user / schema
as ours, am I right in thinking that this is effectively blocking the
entire auto-vaccum system from doing anything at all?
Cheers
Dave
view thread (8+ messages) latest in thread
Message-ID: <ca24673e0911041552k70b4af34k6f689ab116fc8752@mail.gmail.com>
Permalink: ../ca24673e0911041552k70b4af34k6f689ab116fc8752@mail.gmail.com/
Also on: postgresql.org/message-id/ca24673e0911041552k70b4af34k6f689ab116fc8752@mail.gmail.com
copy link · copy postgr.es
reply Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: dcrooke@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Followup: vacuum'ing toast
In-Reply-To: <ca24673e0911041552k70b4af34k6f689ab116fc8752@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox