| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is autovacuum too noisy about orphan temp tables? |
| Date: | 2008-10-15 22:58:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20081015225819.GJ6012@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark escribió:
> Can autovacuum just set a flag on the orphaned temp table's pg_class
> record indicating it's been determined to be an orphan? Then other tools
> could easily list orphaned tables and offer to delete them.
Add a new column to pg_class just for orphan tables? Sure sounds
overkill.
Maybe a bit in the pgstats entry for the table ...? It still seems like
useless bloat to me.
I wonder if we can find out whether a temp table is orphaned by some
other means (a query against catalogs + list of active backends? It
still needs to know whether the table was created by this backend or a
previous one.)
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-10-15 23:26:01 | Re: SlruPhysicalReadPage |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2008-10-15 22:52:20 | Re: Is autovacuum too noisy about orphan temp tables? |