Thanks again Greg, I really appreciated all information.
On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 08:16:41 p.m. EST, Greg Sabino Mullane
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 3:25 PM abrahim abrahao wrote:
SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE (ShareUpdateExclusiveLock) should not be blocked by
ACCESS SHARE (Acce
On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 3:25 PM abrahim abrahao
wrote:
> SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE (ShareUpdateExclusiveLock) should not be blocked
> by ACCESS SHARE (AccessShareLock). Am I wrong about it? If I am not wrong
> why it still locking it?
>
Those locks with no other context are somewhat of a red herri
Thanks Greg, I really appreciated you message.I executed the query you shared,
and it is showing exactly the same type of lock you talked, it help me a lot.
ThanksIt is a usual behavior in some busy databases, I am trying to avoid
cancel sessions. I would like also double check my understanding
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 2:05 PM abrahim abrahao
wrote:
> There is a three-day vacuum freeze on a partition table with wait_event =
> BufferPin, no transactions (active or idle) older than it that are not
> blocked, but at least one select query is executing at all times related of
> this partitio
not always. Running simply
vacuum works because it does not wait for BufferPin. I just expect to see
vacuum freeze wait_event = BufferPin if there is any old transaction related to
the table, am I wrong? Is there a wait to figure out which session vacuum
freeze to wait for?
Below is a list of
