Uwe Schroeder wrote:
On Sunday 08 November 2009 11:38:28 pm Uwe Schroeder wrote:
(why it uses a transaction for a simple select is the other thing).
Every database interaction happens within a transaction.
--
Guy Rouillier
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
On Sunday 08 November 2009 11:38:28 pm Uwe Schroeder wrote:
> I've googled, but there's 0 hits.
>
> I have an issue with a ton of "idle in transaction" backends.
> What I noticed is when I look at pg_locks, pretty much all of the processes
> being idle in transaction have an exclusive lock of lock
Uwe Schroeder wrote:
I've googled, but there's 0 hits.
I have an issue with a ton of "idle in transaction" backends.
What I noticed is when I look at pg_locks, pretty much all of the processes being
idle in transaction have an exclusive lock of locktype "virtualidx
"Idle in Transaction" o
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Uwe Schroeder wrote:
> What I noticed is when I look at pg_locks, pretty much all of the processes
> being idle in transaction have an exclusive lock of locktype "virtualidx".
It's "virtualxid" as in "virtual transaction id" and hopefully more
than pretty much all
On 9 Nov 2009, at 8:38, Uwe Schroeder wrote:
I've googled, but there's 0 hits.
That's because you were looking for the wrong keyword, it doesn't read
"virtualidx" ;)
There is no info about table or anything, all the records look like:
locktype| database | relation | page | tuple |
I've googled, but there's 0 hits.
I have an issue with a ton of "idle in transaction" backends.
What I noticed is when I look at pg_locks, pretty much all of the processes
being idle in transaction have an exclusive lock of locktype "virtualidx".
Well, that doesn't make sense to me, but maybe s
