2009/11/10 Alvaro Herrera :
> Pavel Stehule escribió:
>
>> Hello
>>
>> do you have a idea abou lazy vacuum lockinkg problem?
>>
>> any plans?
>
> Well, I understand the issue and we have an idea on how to attack it,
> but I have no concrete plans to fix it ATM ...
ok
Pavel
>
> --
> Alvaro Herrera
Pavel Stehule escribió:
> Hello
>
> do you have a idea abou lazy vacuum lockinkg problem?
>
> any plans?
Well, I understand the issue and we have an idea on how to attack it,
but I have no concrete plans to fix it ATM ...
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandProm
2009/11/10 Alvaro Herrera :
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> >> Looks OK, but please update the comment right before the
>> >> RecordTransactionCommit, along the lines of "We prevent cancel
>> >> interrupts after this point to mitigate the problem that you
>> >> can't abort the trans
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> >> Looks OK, but please update the comment right before the
> >> RecordTransactionCommit, along the lines of "We prevent cancel
> >> interrupts after this point to mitigate the problem that you
> >> can't abort the transaction now".
>
> > BTW I'm thinkin
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> What I thought could have happened is that the table was truncated, and
> then the sinval message telling that to other backends was not sent due
> to the rollback.
Hmm.
> So far as I can see, what we need is to make sure the sinval message is
> sent regardless of transa
A customer of ours recently hit a problem where after an autovacuum was
cancelled on a table, the app started getting the message in $subject:
ERROR: could not read block 6 of relation 1663/35078/1761966: read only 0 of
8192 bytes
(block numbers vary from 1 to 6). Things remained in this state
