Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Orphan TOAST object

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "James Farrugia" <james(dot)farrugia(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Orphan TOAST object
Date: 2008-05-11 17:09:48
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-admin
"James Farrugia" <james(dot)farrugia(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I wonder whether any of you can help me out with this problem.

What PG version is this?

> To get vacuum the TOAST object we created a temporary table foo (col1
> char(1)) and assigned its reltoastrelid (up till now set to 0) to
> pg_toast_35027430's OID and then vacuumed foo.  The plan worked and
> immediately age(datfrozenxid) in pg_database reflected a much younger XID.

> We then decided to get rid of pg_toast_35027430 by dropping foo.  Foo
> disappeared but pg_toast_35027430 persisted.

Well, yeah, because you didn't create a pg_depend link.

We have seen a couple prior reports of toast tables not going away when
their parent was dropped, but nobody's been able to create a
reproducible case yet.  The most likely idea is probably that pg_depend
got corrupted somehow, causing the toast table not to get found by DROP.

Can you find any rows in pg_depend having objid equal to the OID of 
pg_toast_35027430?  Try reindexing pg_depend and then see if you find

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-05-11 17:26:03
Subject: Re: Orphan TOAST object
Previous:From: James FarrugiaDate: 2008-05-11 16:46:23
Subject: Orphan TOAST object

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group