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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download 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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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)