| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce McAlister <bruce(dot)mcalister(at)blueface(dot)ie>, General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question |
| Date: | 2007-06-29 03:14:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20070629031443.GS32626@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Yeah, we had better investigate some way to clean them up. It was never
> >> obvious before that it mattered to get rid of orphan temp tables, but I
> >> guess it does.
>
> > Would it be enough to delete the tuple from pg_class?
>
> No, you need a full DROP. I don't see that that's harder than removing
> only the pg_class tuple --- the problem in either case is to be sure
> it's OK. In particular, how to avoid a race condition against an
> incoming backend that adopts that BackendId? Worst-case, you could be
> deleting a temp table he just made.
Oh, I was just thinking in way for Bruce to get out of his current
situation.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-29 03:18:05 | Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-29 03:07:27 | Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-29 03:18:05 | Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-29 03:07:27 | Re: AutoVacuum Behaviour Question |