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

Re: vacuumlo.

From: Grant <grant(at)conprojan(dot)com(dot)au>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: vacuumlo.
Date: 2001-07-31 01:52:10
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.21.0107311136370.13873-100000@webster.conprojan.com.au (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > Is it possible to get [vacuumlo] included in the main vacuumdb program for
> > support to vacuum orphaned large objects?
> 
> Hmm.  I'm not convinced that vacuumlo is ready for prime time...
> in particular, how safe is it in the presence of concurrent
> transactions that might be adding or removing LOs?

I see large objects for each database are stored in pg_largeobject referenced
by the loid. So when I delete a file from a table containing an oid type I have
to make sure to delete the matching row(s) from pg_largeobject.

Can you see a scenario where a programmer would forget to delete the data from
pg_largeobject and the database becoming very large filled with orphaned large
objects? Or am I on the wrong track?


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-07-31 02:21:32
Subject: Re: vacuumlo.
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-07-31 01:29:41
Subject: Re: vacuumlo.

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