Re: Idle in transaction ????
От | wsheldah@lexmark.com |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Idle in transaction ???? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200111161526.KAA27447@interlock2.lexmark.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Idle in transaction ???? ("Steve Brett" <steve.brett@e-mis.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
That sounds great. Thanks for clearing that up. Wes Sheldahl Tom Lane <tgl%sss.pgh.pa.us@interlock.lexmark.com> on 11/15/2001 05:52:00 PM To: "Wesley_Sheldahl/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK"@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com cc: pgsql-general%postgresql.org@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: Wesley Sheldahl/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Idle in transaction ???? wsheldah@lexmark.com writes: > If vacuum in 7.2 skips tables it can't lock, It does not. The real change in 7.2 is that vacuum requires only an ordinary writer's lock on the table, not exclusive lock. Since a write lock doesn't conflict with read or write locks (basically it only conflicts with schema-changing operations) we expect that vacuum will run concurrently with most ordinary database operations. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: