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 04:25:00
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.21.0107311420500.22015-100000@webster.conprojan.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > > 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?
> >
> > Sure. My point wasn't that the functionality isn't needed, it's that
> > I'm not sure vacuumlo does it well enough to be ready to promote to
> > the status of mainstream code. It needs more review and testing before
> > we can move it out of /contrib.
> >
>
> IIRC vacuumlo doesn't take the type lo(see contrib/lo) into
> account. I'm suspicious if vacuumlo is reliable.

This was my round about way of asking if something to combat this issue
can be placed in the to do list. :)

Thanks.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Grant 2001-07-31 05:23:25 Re: Returned mail: User unknown
Previous Message Hiroshi Inoue 2001-07-31 04:16:23 Re: vacuumlo.