Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew - Supernews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On 2008-01-07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The real question that Josh's report brings up to me is why the heck was > >> there an orphaned temp table? Especially if it was only a toast table > >> and not the linked "regular" temp table? Something happened there that > >> should not have. > > > The regular table was there too, but the regular table's relfrozenxid > > was apparently recent, only the toast table's was old: > > Hmm, that's even more odd, since AFAICS vacuum will always vacuum a > toast table immediately after vacuuming the parent. I wonder whether > we have a bug somewhere that allows a toast table's relfrozenxid to > get initially set to something substantially different from the > parent's.
Hmm ... that would be strange. Off-the-cuff idea: we introduced code to advance relfrozenxid in CLUSTER, TRUNCATE and table-rewriting forms of ALTER TABLE. Perhaps the problem is that we're neglecting to update it for the toast table there. AFAIR I analyzed the cases and they were all handled, but perhaps I forgot something. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
