> Yeah, I know. I was just trying to defend mysql. ^_^ We use both, and so
> far, it's been the smaller headache, so...
That may be true... until you have to implement transactions and/or foreign
keys at the application level.
> The really strange thing is, one of our newwer databases has
> started hanging on vacuums. That's a 7.1.1, so the 8k thing shouldn't be
> any kind of issue in the slightest thanks to the new internal structures.
My guess is that there is an idle transaction somewhere. We've run into
problems with those locking up our database: Postgres don't like it if you
have an idle transaction that has touched the table(s) that you are trying
to drop, add and/or vacuum.
> But something is corrupt enough to break vaccum badly.
Why do you assume it's due to corrupt and not some other known behavior?
> That doesn't make me feel very good.
Deadlocked databases don't make anyone feel good.
> The worst part is, while it's hung on the vacuum, idle
> connections just start piling up until we have to restart the DB.
>
> That's no good.
That's one thing I've never liked about Postgres... an idle transaction
locks any tables it touches, which causes vacuum to lock the rest of the
database. My understanding is that 7.2 is supposed to be more lock friendly
when it comes to databases... but that doesn't help you out now.
Greg
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
