Re: Vacuum and oldest xmin (again)

On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 10:00:23AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> If you read the code a little more closely, you'd see that it already does.

Hmm, so obviously I was confused in my other message.  But I've seen
the same sort of effect as the OP: transactions in another database
on the same back end seem to prevent some recovery by vacuum in the
local back end.  Is this just an illusion?  (I can probably chalk it
up to a later-completed transaction in the same back end, of course. 
I don't know if the same is true for the OP.)

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary
and imaginative work need not end up well.     --Dennis Ritchie