Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)
Date
Msg-id 21259.1214872060@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> We might have to rearrange the logic a bit to make that happen (I'm not
>> sure what order things get tested in), but a log message does seem like
>> a good idea.  I'd go for logging anytime an orphaned table is seen,
>> and dropping once it's past the anti-wraparound horizon.

> I don't think this requires much of a rearrangement -- see autovacuum.c
> 1921ff.

Hmm, maybe I'm missing something but I see no good way to do it without
refactoring relation_check_autovac.  Since that function is only called
in one place, I'm thinking of just inlining it; do you see a reason
not to?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Bucket and batch
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)