In response to Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Bill Moran <wmoran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > In response to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> Of course they are able to complete, but the point is that they would > >> not remove the tuples that would be visible to that idle open > >> transaction. > > > I would expect that, but the OP claimed that vacuum full waited until > > the other transaction was finished. > > No, she didn't claim that. As far as I see she was just complaining > about the failure to remove dead tuples: > > > > > > If I have a running transaction in database1 and try to vacuum > > > > > database2 but the dead tuples in database2 cannot be removed. Yes, but a later mail in the thread read: > > Can you run a "vacuum > > full", and does it reclaim the space? > > I tried but it hangs. > > [root@conni ~]# ps axw|grep postgres > 1746 ? S 0:00 postgres: writer process > 1747 ? S 0:00 postgres: stats buffer process > 1748 ? S 0:00 postgres: stats collector process > 2106 pts/1 S 0:00 su postgres > 2120 pts/1 S+ 0:00 psql postgres > 2188 ? S 0:04 postgres: postgres dummy1 [local] VACUUM waiting > 2200 pts/3 S 0:00 su postgres > 2215 ? S 0:00 postgres: postgres dummy2 [local] idle in transaction > 2717 pts/2 R+ 0:00 grep postgres Admittedly, I had the (incorrect) idea that she might need a vacuum full to reclaim space that lazy vacuum couldn't. And, admittedly, this wasn't the point of the original post. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc.
