Re: Is autovacuum too noisy about orphan temp tables?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is autovacuum too noisy about orphan temp tables?
Date: 2008-10-15 15:29:15
Message-ID: 20967.1224084555@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> Since this is something that's not supposed to happen, making it a
> WARNING might be appropriate too...

Uh, the complaint was that the message is too noisy, not that it isn't
noisy enough.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2008-10-15 16:03:33 Re: 8.3 .4 + Vista + MingW + initdb = ACCESS_DENIED
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-10-15 15:13:24 Re: Bogus attribute-number range checks in spi.c