vacuumlo.

Grant <grant@conprojan.com.au> writes:

Is it possible to get [vacuumlo] included in the main vacuumdb program for
support to vacuum orphaned large objects?

Hmm. I'm not convinced that vacuumlo is ready for prime time...
in particular, how safe is it in the presence of concurrent
transactions that might be adding or removing LOs?

regards, tom lane

Is it possible to get [vacuumlo] included in the main vacuumdb program for
support to vacuum orphaned large objects?

Hmm. I'm not convinced that vacuumlo is ready for prime time...
in particular, how safe is it in the presence of concurrent
transactions that might be adding or removing LOs?

I see large objects for each database are stored in pg_largeobject referenced
by the loid. So when I delete a file from a table containing an oid type I have
to make sure to delete the matching row(s) from pg_largeobject.

Can you see a scenario where a programmer would forget to delete the data from
pg_largeobject and the database becoming very large filled with orphaned large
objects? Or am I on the wrong track?

Grant <grant@conprojan.com.au> writes:

Can you see a scenario where a programmer would forget to delete the
data from pg_largeobject and the database becoming very large filled
with orphaned large objects?

Sure. My point wasn't that the functionality isn't needed, it's that
I'm not sure vacuumlo does it well enough to be ready to promote to
the status of mainstream code. It needs more review and testing before
we can move it out of /contrib.

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

Grant <grant@conprojan.com.au> writes:

Can you see a scenario where a programmer would forget to delete the
data from pg_largeobject and the database becoming very large filled
with orphaned large objects?

Sure. My point wasn't that the functionality isn't needed, it's that
I'm not sure vacuumlo does it well enough to be ready to promote to
the status of mainstream code. It needs more review and testing before
we can move it out of /contrib.

IIRC vacuumlo doesn't take the type lo(see contrib/lo) into
account. I'm suspicious if vacuumlo is reliable.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

Can you see a scenario where a programmer would forget to delete the
data from pg_largeobject and the database becoming very large filled
with orphaned large objects?

Sure. My point wasn't that the functionality isn't needed, it's that
I'm not sure vacuumlo does it well enough to be ready to promote to
the status of mainstream code. It needs more review and testing before
we can move it out of /contrib.

IIRC vacuumlo doesn't take the type lo(see contrib/lo) into
account. I'm suspicious if vacuumlo is reliable.

This was my round about way of asking if something to combat this issue
can be placed in the to do list. :)

Thanks.

Can you see a scenario where a programmer would forget to delete the
data from pg_largeobject and the database becoming very large filled
with orphaned large objects?

Sure. My point wasn't that the functionality isn't needed, it's that
I'm not sure vacuumlo does it well enough to be ready to promote to
the status of mainstream code. It needs more review and testing before
we can move it out of /contrib.

IIRC vacuumlo doesn't take the type lo(see contrib/lo) into
account. I'm suspicious if vacuumlo is reliable.

This was my round about way of asking if something to combat this issue
can be placed in the to do list. :)

Added to TODO:

* Improve vacuum of large objects (/contrib/vacuumlo)

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

IIRC vacuumlo doesn't take the type lo(see contrib/lo) into
account. I'm suspicious if vacuumlo is reliable.

This was my round about way of asking if something to combat this issue
can be placed in the to do list. :)

Added to TODO:

* Improve vacuum of large objects (/contrib/vacuumlo)

Is it possible for vacuumlo to be moved out of /contrib ?
As far as I see, there's no perfect solution for vacuumlo.

Not sure myself. Let's see what others say.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Can you see a scenario where a programmer would forget to delete the
data from pg_largeobject and the database becoming very large filled
with orphaned large objects?

Sure. My point wasn't that the functionality isn't needed, it's that
I'm not sure vacuumlo does it well enough to be ready to promote to
the status of mainstream code. It needs more review and testing before
we can move it out of /contrib.

IIRC vacuumlo doesn't take the type lo(see contrib/lo) into
account. I'm suspicious if vacuumlo is reliable.

This was my round about way of asking if something to combat this issue
can be placed in the to do list. :)

Added to TODO:

* Improve vacuum of large objects (/contrib/vacuumlo)

Is it possible for vacuumlo to be moved out of /contrib ?
As far as I see, there's no perfect solution for vacuumlo.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue