"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?
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services!
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2008-06-27 16:24:41|
|Subject: Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)|
|Previous:||From: Jeff McKenna||Date: 2008-06-27 16:07:16|
|Subject: Re: MSVC 2003 compile error with pg8.3.3|