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.
Is there an easy way for an Admin clean-up the lost temp tables that
autovacuum is complaining about? It seems like it could be along time
and a lot of log messages between when they are first orphaned and and
finally dropped due to anti-wraparound protection.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Hammond||Date: 2008-06-27 23:31:05|
|Subject: Re: the un-vacuumable table|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-06-27 22:31:55|
|Subject: Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again) |