Tom Lane wrote: > 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. > > Hmm, maybe I'm missing something but I see no good way to do it without > refactoring relation_check_autovac.
Hmm, oops :-) > Since that function is only called in one place, I'm thinking of just > inlining it; do you see a reason not to? Nope, go ahead. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
