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

Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question

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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-06-29 03:14:43
Subject: Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-06-29 02:52:31
Subject: Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-06-29 03:14:43
Subject: Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-06-29 02:52:31
Subject: Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question

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