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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Browne Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 6:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Question about DB VACUUM In the last exciting episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("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 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
