Alvaro Herrera wrote:
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.
Just to throw another variable into the mix. This machine was a PITR
slave that was pushed into production about two weeks ago.
Joshua D. Drake
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
