Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> We might have to rearrange the logic a bit to make that happen (I'm not
>> sure what order things get tested in), but a log message does seem like
>> a good idea. I'd go for logging anytime an orphaned table is seen,
>> and dropping once it's past the anti-wraparound horizon.
> I don't think this requires much of a rearrangement -- see autovacuum.c
So everyone is happy with the concept of doing it as above? If so,
I'll work on it this weekend sometime.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Matthew T. O'Connor||Date: 2008-06-27 23:16:04|
|Subject: Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-06-27 22:08:06|
|Subject: Re: Table inheritance surprise |