Re: Is autovacuum too noisy about orphan temp tables?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is autovacuum too noisy about orphan temp tables?
Date: 2008-10-14 21:01:38
Message-ID: 15553.1224018098@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Why can't we drop orphan temp tables automatically?

See prior discussion --- it was deemed too risky. What if there's a bug
in the determination of what's an orphan temp table?

> Standard DBAs are blind to LOG level messages.

Indeed, which is why I'm not too concerned about Heikki's complaint.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2008-10-14 21:04:46 Re: Is autovacuum too noisy about orphan temp tables?
Previous Message Stefan Kaltenbrunner 2008-10-14 21:00:59 Re: spoonbill is failing citext test