Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)
Date: 2008-07-01 01:13:44
Message-ID: 20080701011344.GI18252@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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
> > 1921ff.
>
> Hmm, maybe I'm missing something but I see no good way to do it without
> refactoring relation_check_autovac.

Hmm, oops :-)

> Since that function is only called in one place, I'm thinking of just
> inlining it; do you see a reason not to?

Nope, go ahead.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Hammond 2008-07-01 02:20:50 Re: the un-vacuumable table
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-07-01 00:27:40 Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)