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

Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)
Date: 2008-06-27 16:12:20
Message-ID: 87d4m2rh5n.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> The main attractions of this idea are avoiding the corrupt-index issue and
> not doing vacuuming work that's 99.99% sure to be useless.

It does seem strange to me to vacuum a table you're pretty sure is useless
*and* quite likely corrupt.

Could autovacuum emit log messages as soon as it sees such tables and start
dropping them at some point later?

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com
  Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services!

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2008-06-27 16:24:41
Subject: Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)
Previous:From: Jeff McKennaDate: 2008-06-27 16:07:16
Subject: Re: MSVC 2003 compile error with pg8.3.3

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