On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:15 AM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote: > On 10/21/16 8:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> >>> It seems to me that you'd even want to make the drop of orphaned >>> > tables mandatory once it is detected even it is not a wraparound >>> > autovacuum. >> >> If we are willing to do that then we don't really have to solve the >> problem on the backend side. One could expect that autovacuum would >> clean things up within a few minutes after a backend failure. > > Unless all the autovac workers are busy working on huge tables... maybe a > delay of several hours/days is OK in this case, but it's not wise to assume > autovac will always get to something within minutes.
I am really thinking that we should just do that and call it a day then, but document the fact that if one wants to look at the content of orphaned tables after a crash he had better turn autovacuum to off for the time of the analysis. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
