Re: Problems Vacuum'ing

jseymour@LinxNet.com (Jim Seymour) writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> WebObjects is evidently holding an open transaction.

> It certainly isn't holding open a transaction in the database I'm
> working with.

Which database the transaction is in isn't real relevant... the logic is
done globally so that it will be correct when vacuuming shared tables.

> It's unclear to me it's holding any transaction open,
> anywhere.

Sure it is, assuming that PID 18020 is the session we're talking about.

> postgres=# select * from pg_locks where transaction is not null;
>  relation | database | transaction |  pid  |     mode      | granted 
> ----------+----------+-------------+-------+---------------+---------
>           |          |     1245358 | 18020 | ExclusiveLock | t
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This process has an open transaction number 1245358.  That's what an
exclusive lock on a transaction means.

>  17142 | postgres |     267 |        1 | postgres   |               | 
>  17144 | qantel   |   18020 |      103 | webobjects |               | 

These entries didn't make a lot of sense to me since the other examples
you mentioned did not seem to be getting executed in the 'postgres'
database --- but I assume PID 18020 is the one you are referring to as
webobjects.
        regards, tom lane