Re: Fun fact about autovacuum and orphan temp tables

From: "Constantin S(dot) Pan" <kvapen(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Grigory Smolkin <g(dot)smolkin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fun fact about autovacuum and orphan temp tables
Date: 2016-10-21 10:08:58
Message-ID: 20161021130858.620751f1@ppg
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 14:29:24 +0900
Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> That's invasive. I am wondering if a cleaner approach here would be a
> flag in deleteOneObject() that performs the lock cleanup, as that's
> what you are trying to solve here.

The problem occurs earlier, at the findDependentObjects step. All the
objects inside the namespace are being locked before any of them gets
deleted, which leads to the "too many locks" condition.

Cheers,
Constantin Pan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2016-10-21 10:49:57 Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2016-10-21 10:06:28 Re: Question about behavior of snapshot too old feature