|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)|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
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
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
|Next Message||Richard Huxton||2008-06-27 16:58:41||Re: Does anything dump per-database config settings? (was Re: ALTER DATABASE vs pg_dump)|
|Previous Message||Richard Huxton||2008-06-27 16:51:37||Does anything dump per-database config settings? (was Re: ALTER DATABASE vs pg_dump)|