From: James Farrugia <james.farrugia@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Orphan TOAST object
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 16:41:22 +0200
Message-ID: <8d01be800805120741h6bba86d5p30bc54e6daa184e9@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <18954.1210601335@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <8d01be800805110946r792efacdp3dbe02829b6da7a9@mail.gmail.com>
<20553.1210525788@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<8d01be800805111017w6910acdapaf66f0b56908d36e@mail.gmail.com>
<20763.1210526763@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<8d01be800805120025u3a49fa39rc7033a2480b4982f@mail.gmail.com>
<18954.1210601335@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Problem has now been solved. Thanks a lot for all your help.
On 5/12/08, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> "James Farrugia" <james.farrugia@gmail.com> writes:
> > One last thing...can we run into data-loss problems with successfully
> > vacuumed tables even if there is one unvacuumed database object; what
> would
> > have happened if I ignored to vacuum that rogue pg_toast (which was the
> only
> > unvacuumed object within the entire database)?
>
> The database would have shut down when you got to the
> 2-billion-transactions mark. So you'd have had to solve the problem
> sooner or later anyway.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: james.farrugia@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: Orphan TOAST object
In-Reply-To: <8d01be800805120741h6bba86d5p30bc54e6daa184e9@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox