Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> What about having autovacuum silenty drop the catalog entry if it's a
>> temp entry for which the underlying file does not exist?
> I think that would be subject to race conditions.
Well, autovacuum's willingness to drop sufficiently old temp tables
would already risk any such race conditions. However ...
> The current
> mechanism is actually pretty good, and I think we can build on it if
> we want to do more, rather than inventing something new. We just need
> to be specific about what problem we're trying to solve.
... I agree with this point. This idea wouldn't fix the concern I had
about the existence of pg_class entries with no underlying file: if that
causes any issues we'd have to fix them anyway. So I'm not sure what
the gain is.
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
