From: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: startup process stuck in recovery |
Date: | 2017-10-09 23:12:45 |
Message-ID: | 1EE3427E-2FE2-4B11-BCF7-0B001C315EFC@thebuild.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> On Oct 9, 2017, at 14:29, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Hmm. Creating or dropping a temp table does take AccessExclusiveLock,
> just as it does for a non-temp table. In principle we'd not have to
> transmit those locks to standbys, but I doubt that the WAL code has
> enough knowledge to filter them out. So a lot of temp tables and
> a lot of separate subtransactions could be a nasty combination.
The problem indeed appear to be a very large number of subtransactions, each one creating a temp table, inside a single transaction. It's made worse by one of those transactions finally getting replayed on the secondary, only to have another one come in right behind it...
--
-- Christophe Pettus
xof(at)thebuild(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2017-10-09 23:15:58 | Re: Can master and slave on different PG versions? |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2017-10-09 23:09:56 | Re: Equivalence Classes when using IN |