Sorry to be such a pain on this, but we are running postgres on a system
where we are using a 512MB compact flash as our physical disk media, so
disk space usage is of utmost importance.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Christopher
Browne
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 6:22 AM
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Question about DB VACUUM
In the last exciting episode, cjwhite@cisco.com ("Chris White
(cjwhite)") wrote:
> BTW, the connection I shutdown, had not read, written or deleted any
> large objects. It had read and written to other tables. This is
> causing me concern as I am using a thread pool to provide access to
> the data in the large object table, and this seems to imply I have to
> close each connection after reading/writing or deleting a large object
> in order for me to truly reclaim unused space when I issue my periodic
> vacuum command.
Yup, that sounds like a more-than-vaguely familiar story...
The implication may not be _precisely_ correct, but the difference
between what you're expecting and reality seems to be difficult to get
at.
I would expect that if you fired a (perhaps trivial) transaction through
each of the connections once in a while, that would "clear things up"
too. How to accomplish that may be the challenge...
--
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','ntlug.org').
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/postgresql.html
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to
land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly
overhead." -- RFC 1925
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html