Markus Schaber wrote:
I just asked myself whether a 2-phase-commit transaction that was
prepared, but never committed, can block vacuuming and TID recycling.
Yes.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
---(end of broadcast)--
Hi, Jeff & all,
Jeff Davis wrote:
> (2) You have a long-running transaction that never completed for some
> strange reason.
I just asked myself whether a 2-phase-commit transaction that was
prepared, but never committed, can block vacuuming and TID recycling.
Markus
--
Markus Schaber | Logic
On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 20:10 +0200, Marinos Yannikos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> we're looking into the reason why we are getting warnings about
> transaction ID wraparound despite a daily "vaccumdb -qaz". Someone is
> claiming that VACUUM without FULL cannot reassign XIDs properly when
> max_fsm_pages
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Marinos Yannikos
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 1:11 PM
> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: [PERFORM] VACUUM FULL needed sometimes to prevent
> transaction ID wraparound?
>
>
> Hello,
>
> we're looking into
Marinos Yannikos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> we're looking into the reason why we are getting warnings about
> transaction ID wraparound despite a daily "vaccumdb -qaz". Someone is
> claiming that VACUUM without FULL cannot reassign XIDs properly when
> max_fsm_pages was set too low (it says so here to
Hello,
we're looking into the reason why we are getting warnings about
transaction ID wraparound despite a daily "vaccumdb -qaz". Someone is
claiming that VACUUM without FULL cannot reassign XIDs properly when
max_fsm_pages was set too low (it says so here too, but this is rather
old: http://
