| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum and TOAST tables |
| Date: | 2008-08-12 01:06:09 |
| Message-ID: | 20080812010608.GI8416@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> On second thought, I think it *could* lead to a visible failure.
> Suppose the OID counter wraps around and the OID that had been used for
> the temporary CLUSTER table gets assigned to a new table. If that table
> needs a toast table, it'll try to create one using the name that is
> already in use. We have defenses against picking an OID that's in use,
> but none for toast table names. So I think it's indeed worth fixing.
Okay, I'll see to it after committing this autovacuum stuff.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-08-12 01:45:45 | Re: IN vs EXISTS equivalence |
| Previous Message | Casey Duncan | 2008-08-12 00:43:55 | Re: Mini improvement: statement_cost_limit |