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
