Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce McAlister <bruce(dot)mcalister(at)blueface(dot)ie>, General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question
Date: 2007-06-29 03:14:43
Message-ID: 20070629031443.GS32626@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Yeah, we had better investigate some way to clean them up. It was never
> >> obvious before that it mattered to get rid of orphan temp tables, but I
> >> guess it does.
>
> > Would it be enough to delete the tuple from pg_class?
>
> No, you need a full DROP. I don't see that that's harder than removing
> only the pg_class tuple --- the problem in either case is to be sure
> it's OK. In particular, how to avoid a race condition against an
> incoming backend that adopts that BackendId? Worst-case, you could be
> deleting a temp table he just made.

Oh, I was just thinking in way for Bruce to get out of his current
situation.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-06-29 03:18:05 Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-06-29 03:07:27 Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-06-29 03:18:05 Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-06-29 03:07:27 Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question