Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
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 00:27:40
Message-ID: 21259.1214872060@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.  Since that function is only called
in one place, I'm thinking of just inlining it; do you see a reason
not to?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2008-07-01 01:13:44
Subject: Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-06-30 23:54:44
Subject: Re: Bucket and batch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group