On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 04:08:48PM -0500, Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:
> So my first instinct was to avoid use of temp tables in this scenario
> altogether, but now I'm thinking all I might need to do is unhook the
> temp tables from inheritance.
>
> But I just want to raise a basic reliability issu raised in the
> nearby "Autovacuum loose ends" thread issue before I conclude that
> this approach is safe enough to prevent any more bgwriter errors:
> does pg_autovacuum as currently written in contrib vacuum temp
> tables, and, in 8.0, is this then able (however unlikely) to cause
> the sort of error I encountered yesterday? Or was that thread only
> talking about the new integrated version of the code as far as access
> to temp tables are concerned?
AFAICS contrib's pg_autovacuum ignores temp tables, so you're safe.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>)
"Linux transformó mi computadora, de una `máquina para hacer cosas',
en un aparato realmente entretenido, sobre el cual cada día aprendo
algo nuevo" (Jaime Salinas)
