From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | andrew(at)supernews(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Bug: Unreferenced temp tables disables vacuum to update xid |
Date: | 2008-01-08 01:07:32 |
Message-ID: | 20080108010732.GA1828@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews(at)supernews(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2008-01-07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> The real question that Josh's report brings up to me is why the heck was
> >> there an orphaned temp table? Especially if it was only a toast table
> >> and not the linked "regular" temp table? Something happened there that
> >> should not have.
>
> > The regular table was there too, but the regular table's relfrozenxid
> > was apparently recent, only the toast table's was old:
>
> Hmm, that's even more odd, since AFAICS vacuum will always vacuum a
> toast table immediately after vacuuming the parent. I wonder whether
> we have a bug somewhere that allows a toast table's relfrozenxid to
> get initially set to something substantially different from the
> parent's.
Hmm ... that would be strange. Off-the-cuff idea: we introduced code to
advance relfrozenxid in CLUSTER, TRUNCATE and table-rewriting forms of
ALTER TABLE. Perhaps the problem is that we're neglecting to update it
for the toast table there. AFAIR I analyzed the cases and they were all
handled, but perhaps I forgot something.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-08 01:57:01 | Re: 8.3.0 release schedule (Was:Re: [BUGS] BUG #3852: Could not create complex aggregate) |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-01-08 01:01:56 | Re: 8.3.0 release schedule (Was:Re: [BUGS] BUG #3852: Could not create complex aggregate) |