From: | MUHAMMAD ASIF <anaeem(dot)it(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: vacuumlo issue |
Date: | 2012-03-20 20:15:20 |
Message-ID: | BAY164-W492BF295A482CD2CB60EA8FF430@phx.gbl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | 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(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-03-20 20:16:17 | Re: Error trying to compile a simple C trigger |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-20 20:00:14 | Re: Memory usage during sorting |