| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again) |
| Date: | 2008-06-27 17:14:15 |
| Message-ID: | 48651FE7.2020205@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Or we could have autovacuum just drop orphaned temp tables, *if*
>> they have gotten old enough to need anti-wraparound vacuuming.
>> While I'm still uncomfortable with having autovac drop anything,
>> at least this would avoid the worst cases of "gee I really needed
>> that data to investigate the crash". The main attractions of this
>> idea are avoiding the corrupt-index issue and not doing vacuuming
>> work that's 99.99% sure to be useless.
>
> That sounds a lot simpler and better to me.
Yeah, when I read the original this one struck me as almost a no-brainer
choice.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2008-06-27 17:24:56 | Re: Latest on CITEXT 2.0 |
| Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2008-06-27 16:58:41 | Re: Does anything dump per-database config settings? (was Re: ALTER DATABASE vs pg_dump) |