Re: vacuumlo issue - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From MUHAMMAD ASIF
Subject Re: vacuumlo issue
Date
Msg-id BAY164-W492BF295A482CD2CB60EA8FF430@phx.gbl
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: vacuumlo issue  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List 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@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Memory usage during sorting
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Error trying to compile a simple C trigger