[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Matthew T. O'Connor") wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Should pg_autovacuum be vacuuming temporary tables?
>
> This is a good question, and I would like some opinions from some other
> people more informed than I.
>
>> Secondly, why would
>> a temporary table for another sessio
On Wednesday 21 April 2004 12:05 am, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >> No, I have not heard of a 7.4.3 timeline, but we certainly want your
> >> eventual fixes in that release.
> >
> > Right, and along these lines there are a few other pg_autovacuum bugs
> > that were fixed just after 7.4.2.
>
>
Ok, so I will change pg_autovacuum to explicitly ignore temp tables.
Just to be sure, I can do this by avoiding anything found in the pg_temp
schemea, or is there a better way? Is it possible that a user could or
would put a non-temp table the pg_temp schemea?
There's no such thing as the pg_t
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> System Tables: pg_autovacuum treats non-shared system tables just like
> any other table. It monitors the activity and vacuums when it deems it
> appropriate. As for shared system tables: In user databases they are
> only analyzed by pg_auto
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just to be sure, I can do this by avoiding anything found in the pg_temp
> schemea, or is there a better way? Is it possible that a user could or
> would put a non-temp table the pg_temp schemea?
The pg_temp_NN schemas are the temp objects, by
No, I have not heard of a 7.4.3 timeline, but we certainly want your
eventual fixes in that release.
Right, and along these lines there are a few other pg_autovacuum bugs
that were fixed just after 7.4.2.
A rollable log solution would be nice :) Syslog? :)
Chris
---(end
Tom Lane wrote:
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This is a good question, and I would like some opinions from some other
people more informed than I.
You *can not* vacuum other sessions' temp tables; you don't have access
to the data. (You have no way to get at pages that
Bruce Momjian wrote:
No, I have not heard of a 7.4.3 timeline, but we certainly want your
eventual fixes in that release.
Right, and along these lines there are a few other pg_autovacuum bugs
that were fixed just after 7.4.2.
---(end of broadcast)--
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Does pg_autovacuum vacuum and analyze system catalog and TOAST tables
properly?
Properly? I think so, that is to the best of my knowledge which is a
bit limited :-)
Toast Tables: pg_autovacuum doesn't do anything to toast tables
explicitly. I am not aware th
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Should pg_autovacuum be vacuuming temporary tables?
> This is a good question, and I would like some opinions from some other
> people more informed than I.
You *can not* vacuum other sessions' temp tables; you don't hav
I looked into this and I see a number of cases where pg_autovacuum calls
send_query(), but doesn't test for a NULL return from the function.
Matthew, would you look into this and submit a patch? Thanks.
Does pg_autovacuum vacuum and analyze system catalog and TOAST tables
properly?
Chris
--
Yeah, I will, I just don't know when. I have been trying to get to this
and lots of other pg_autovacuum tasks, but my schedule has been quite
crazy as of late. Anyway, this should probably be a pretty simple patch,
so I can probably find some time to look at it soon.
Any idea on the 7.4.3 releas
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> Yeah, I will, I just don't know when. I have been trying to get to this
> and lots of other pg_autovacuum tasks, but my schedule has been quite
> crazy as of late. Anyway, this should probably be a pretty simple patch,
> so I can probably find some time to look at it
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I looked into this and I see a number of cases where pg_autovacuum calls
send_query(), but doesn't test for a NULL return from the function.
Matthew, would you look into this and submit a patch? Thanks.
Should pg_autovacuum be vacuuming temporary tables? Secondly, why wo
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Should pg_autovacuum be vacuuming temporary tables?
This is a good question, and I would like some opinions from some other
people more informed than I.
> Secondly, why would
> a temporary table for another session be visible to pg_autovacuum? I
> know these may sound li
15 matches
Mail list logo
