Received: from mail1.expertrade.com (r87-43-dsl.sea.lightrealm.net
	[216.122.43.87])
	by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5E4GGE44302;
	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 00:16:16 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from d.wall@computer.org)
Received: from reggae (reggae.expertrade.com [216.122.43.90])
	by mail1.expertrade.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA12771;
	Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:16:16 -0700
Message-ID: <01b401c0f488$c684dea0$5a2b7ad8@expertrade.com>
Reply-To: "David Wall" <d.wall@computer.org>
From: "David Wall" <d.wall@computer.org>
To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>, <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Vacuum analyze in 7.1.1 
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:16:24 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01B1_01C0F44E.1A153DC0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
X-Archive-Number: 200106/512
X-Sequence-Number: 11002

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_01B1_01C0F44E.1A153DC0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> I'll have to see if JDBC does an unlink anywhere.

Whoa!  Looks like JDBC (as makes sense if you think about the libraries)
doesn't unlink those large objects.  There is a call in the
postgresql-specific for doing the lo_unlink, but it requires an OID, and
when deleting a row, most of the time I only know the primary key, not the
OIDs inside.  So, I guess I'll have to run vacuumlo from contrib before I do
the regular vacuum.

Does anybody know if vacuumlo is truly safe to use?  I just ran it on my
test system and it removed a bunch of orphans, but I just hope they were
really orphans!

David



------=_NextPart_000_01B1_01C0F44E.1A153DC0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4613.1700" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3>&g=
t; I'll have=20
to see if JDBC does an unlink anywhere.<BR><BR>Whoa!&nbsp; Looks like JDBC =
(as=20
makes sense if you think about the libraries)<BR>doesn't unlink those large=
=20
objects.&nbsp; There is a call in the<BR>postgresql-specific for doing the=
=20
lo_unlink, but it requires an OID, and<BR>when deleting a row, most of the =
time=20
I only know the primary key, not the<BR>OIDs inside.&nbsp; So, I guess I'll=
 have=20
to run vacuumlo from contrib before I do<BR>the regular vacuum.<BR><BR>Does=
=20
anybody know if vacuumlo is truly safe to use?&nbsp; I just ran it on my<BR=
>test=20
system and it removed a bunch of orphans, but I just hope they were<BR>real=
ly=20
orphans!<BR><BR>David</FONT><BR><BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_01B1_01C0F44E.1A153DC0--