Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> We might have to rearrange the logic a bit to make that happen (I'm not >> sure what order things get tested in), but a log message does seem like >> a good idea. I'd go for logging anytime an orphaned table is seen, >> and dropping once it's past the anti-wraparound horizon.
> I don't think this requires much of a rearrangement -- see autovacuum.c > 1921ff. So everyone is happy with the concept of doing it as above? If so, I'll work on it this weekend sometime. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers