On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 04:08:48PM -0500, Thomas F. O'Connell wrote: > So my first instinct was to avoid use of temp tables in this scenario > altogether, but now I'm thinking all I might need to do is unhook the > temp tables from inheritance. > > But I just want to raise a basic reliability issu raised in the > nearby "Autovacuum loose ends" thread issue before I conclude that > this approach is safe enough to prevent any more bgwriter errors: > does pg_autovacuum as currently written in contrib vacuum temp > tables, and, in 8.0, is this then able (however unlikely) to cause > the sort of error I encountered yesterday? Or was that thread only > talking about the new integrated version of the code as far as access > to temp tables are concerned? AFAICS contrib's pg_autovacuum ignores temp tables, so you're safe. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>) "Linux transformó mi computadora, de una `máquina para hacer cosas', en un aparato realmente entretenido, sobre el cual cada día aprendo algo nuevo" (Jaime Salinas) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
