Re: bug in vacuumlo?

Hi,

I tried to use vacuumlo of posgres-7.3.4/contrib/vacuumlo and it didn't
work
for me until I added one line:

strcat(buf, " AND c.relname <> 'vacuum_l'");

after strcat(buf, "SELECT c.relname, a.attname ");
strcat(buf, "FROM pg_class c, pg_attribute a, pg_type t ");
strcat(buf, "WHERE a.attnum > 0 ");
strcat(buf, " AND a.attrelid = c.oid ");
strcat(buf, " AND a.atttypid = t.oid ");
strcat(buf, " AND t.typname in ('oid', 'lo') ");
strcat(buf, " AND c.relkind = 'r'");

Is it a bug or I'm missing something?

Thank you,
Irina
irina(at)bnl(dot)gov

Irina Sourikova <irina(at)bnl(dot)gov> writes:
> I tried to use vacuumlo of posgres-7.3.4/contrib/vacuumlo and it didn't
> work
> for me until I added one line:
> strcat(buf, " AND c.relname <> 'vacuum_l'");

Hmm. This bug was patched last year in CVS tip, but apparently not in
the 7.3 branch. Sigh.

regards, tom lane

Do we need a 'AND NOT a.attisdropped' in there anywhere as well?

Chris

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Irina Sourikova wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I tried to use vacuumlo of posgres-7.3.4/contrib/vacuumlo and it didn't
> work
> for me until I added one line:
>
> strcat(buf, " AND c.relname <> 'vacuum_l'");
>
> after strcat(buf, "SELECT c.relname, a.attname ");
> strcat(buf, "FROM pg_class c, pg_attribute a, pg_type t ");
> strcat(buf, "WHERE a.attnum > 0 ");
> strcat(buf, " AND a.attrelid = c.oid ");
> strcat(buf, " AND a.atttypid = t.oid ");
> strcat(buf, " AND t.typname in ('oid', 'lo') ");
> strcat(buf, " AND c.relkind = 'r'");
>
> Is it a bug or I'm missing something?
>
> Thank you,
> Irina
> irina(at)bnl(dot)gov
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Do we need a 'AND NOT a.attisdropped' in there anywhere as well?

Hm, probably a good idea, although in the current state of the code
it theoretically shouldn't matter. (DROP COLUMN zeroes atttypid,
so that part of the join won't succeed. But vacuumlo shouldn't depend
on it.) I've applied a patch.

regards, tom lane