Re: check point segments leakage ?

On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 18:54, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > I don't know why the 1st VACUUM FULL wasn't able to reclaim the same 
> > amount of space as the 2nd one, but I would guess that it wasn't able to 
> > get a lock on some table.  It could have been autovac if it was doing a 
> > vacuum at that moment, but it could have been something else too.
> 
> Or there was a long running transaction in the background. The oldest
> active transaction will place limits on what VACUUM can or cannot
> remove.
> 

What happens when a transaction fails to either commit or abort as a
result of a serious error?

That looks like a transaction-in-progress doesn't it? 

Would that prevent VACUUM from doing its work? It should be able to
check the last startup xid to check that isn't the case, but suppose a
backend had exited without taking down the postmaster.

(...waits for thunder...)

Best Regards, Simon Riggs