Re: Closing inactive connections OR user connections
От | Brian Hirt |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Closing inactive connections OR user connections |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1037834219.5828.17.camel@tex.mobygames.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Closing inactive connections OR user connections limits ("scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Closing inactive connections OR user connections limits
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Scott, You did a rollback on the transaction, so the delete was never commited. I hope you aren't expecting vacuum to delete uncommited rows from the database, are you? --brian On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 16:12, scott.marlowe wrote: > On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Medi Montaseri wrote: > > > Its my understanding that vacuum actually removes tuples that have been > > updated or deleted. > > Sort of like emptying your trash .... whence a tuple has been removed, > > no rollback can set the > > state back. If you have logically removed a tuple (not vacuumed yet), > > then one can rollback, > > but if you vacuum then you can not rollback. > > > > Now suppose transaction A decides to delete some tuples, a vacuum job > > comes along and > > deletes things (in parallel), trans A decides to rollback....engines who > > support parallel > > vacuum-ing and transactions such as PG 7.2 better have a way of > > protecting themselves > > against this.... > > > > Correct me if ... > > Yes, you are wrong. Postgresql's vacuuming does NOT free tuples that are > still in a transaction, hence a full vacuum will hand waiting for the > transaction to complete or roll back. A normal 7.2 vacuum will simply > skip the in transaction tuples. > > For proof, try this: (Note A> and B> are used to represent two different > sessions) > > A> create table test (a text, id int); > A> insert into test (a,id) values ('abc',123); > A> begin; > A> delete from test where id=123; > B> vacuum; > A> rollback; > A> select * from test; > a | id > -------- > abc| 123 > > Still there. > > > > > > Neil Conway wrote: > > > > >Medi Montaseri <medi.montaseri@intransa.com> writes: > > > > > > > > >>I think from the data integrity point of view, vacuum is more > > >>important than vacuum full. > > >> > > >> > > > > > >Why would VACUUM have any effect on data integrity, either positive or > > >negative? > > > > > >Cheers, > > > > > >Neil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html -- Brian Hirt <bhirt@mobygames.com>
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: