| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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) |