From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Thomas F(dot) O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> |
Cc: | PgSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: ERROR: could not open relation |
Date: | 2005-07-14 21:23:15 |
Message-ID: | 20050714212314.GL19778@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
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)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-07-14 21:29:23 | Re: Converting MySQL tinyint to PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-14 21:16:56 | Re: ERROR: could not open relation |