| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce McAlister <bruce(dot)mcalister(at)blueface(dot)ie>, General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question |
| Date: | 2007-06-29 03:07:27 |
| Message-ID: | 3526.1183086447@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, we had better investigate some way to clean them up. It was never
>> obvious before that it mattered to get rid of orphan temp tables, but I
>> guess it does.
> Would it be enough to delete the tuple from pg_class?
No, you need a full DROP. I don't see that that's harder than removing
only the pg_class tuple --- the problem in either case is to be sure
it's OK. In particular, how to avoid a race condition against an
incoming backend that adopts that BackendId? Worst-case, you could be
deleting a temp table he just made.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-06-29 03:14:43 | Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-06-29 02:52:31 | Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-06-29 03:14:43 | Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-06-29 02:52:31 | Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question |