| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | A Gattiker <agattik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: "out of shared memory error" with temp tables |
| Date: | 2006-02-13 06:56:22 |
| Message-ID: | 19607.1139813782@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
A Gattiker <agattik(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I have procedures that create temporary tables every time. When those
> procedures are called many times in a single transaction I get an "out
> of shared memory error". This happens even if the temporary tables are
> correctly dropped as shown in the example below. Does postgres retain
> a lock to a dropped object? How may I prevent this?
Yes, and you can't, because the object is not actually dropped until end
of transaction. I'd suggest rethinking your temp table use: that design
is going to bloat the system catalogs enormously, even if you weren't
running out of lock space.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-13 06:58:22 | Re: Compile of Pgmail function fails |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-02-13 06:49:43 | Re: Why does an ON SELECT rule have to be named "_RETURN"? |