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

Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)
Date: 2008-06-27 16:12:20
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> 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.

It does seem strange to me to vacuum a table you're pretty sure is useless
*and* quite likely corrupt.

Could autovacuum emit log messages as soon as it sees such tables and start
dropping them at some point later?

  Gregory Stark
  Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services!

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2008-06-27 16:24:41
Subject: Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)
Previous:From: Jeff McKennaDate: 2008-06-27 16:07:16
Subject: Re: MSVC 2003 compile error with pg8.3.3

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