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

Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

From: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
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: 2008-06-27 23:16:04
Message-ID: 486574B4.3020105@zeut.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew HammondDate: 2008-06-27 23:31:05
Subject: Re: the un-vacuumable table
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-06-27 22:31:55
Subject: Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

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