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

Re: vacuumlo issue

From: MUHAMMAD ASIF <anaeem(dot)it(at)hotmail(dot)com>
To: <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: vacuumlo issue
Date: 2012-03-20 20:15:20
Message-ID: BAY164-W492BF295A482CD2CB60EA8FF430@phx.gbl (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > I think you are asking for this option:
> >   -l LIMIT     stop after removing LIMIT large objects
> > which was added in b69f2e36402aaa.

Thank you for informing about -l option in 9.2. Can I build/use this contrib with older pg versions i.e. pg 9.1 ? . Thanks.
> Uh, no, actually that flag seems utterly brain-dead.  Who'd want to
> abandon the run after removing some arbitrary subset of the
> known-unreferenced large objects?  You'd just have to do all the search
> work over again.  What I'm thinking about is doing a COMMIT after every
> N large objects.
> I see that patch has not made it to any released versions yet.
> Is it too late to rethink the design?  I propose (a) redefining it
> as committing after every N objects, and (b) having a limit of 1000
> or so objects by default.
That will be really nice and helpful if it automatically clean all of the orphan large objects. Thanks.
> 			regards, tom lane
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2012-03-20 20:16:17
Subject: Re: Error trying to compile a simple C trigger
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-03-20 20:00:14
Subject: Re: Memory usage during sorting

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