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

Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)
Date: 2008-06-27 16:52:10
Message-ID: 20080627165210.GH28169@alvh.no-ip.org (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > Could autovacuum emit log messages as soon as it sees such tables and start
> > dropping them at some point later?
> 
> We might have to rearrange the logic a bit to make that happen (I'm not
> sure what order things get tested in), but a log message does seem like
> a good idea.  I'd go for logging anytime an orphaned table is seen,
> and dropping once it's past the anti-wraparound horizon.

I don't think this requires much of a rearrangement -- see autovacuum.c
1921ff.

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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Richard HuxtonDate: 2008-06-27 16:58:41
Subject: Re: Does anything dump per-database config settings? (was Re: ALTER DATABASE vs pg_dump)
Previous:From: Richard HuxtonDate: 2008-06-27 16:51:37
Subject: Does anything dump per-database config settings? (was Re: ALTER DATABASE vs pg_dump)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group