From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: removal of dangling temp tables |
Date: | 2018-12-15 02:06:32 |
Message-ID: | 20181215020632.5vlffyvfpn4k42cn@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-Dec-14, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 6:35 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Hm. It *could*, if we wanted it to run some transactions after
> > finishing recovery.
>
> It'd have to launch a separate process per database. That would be
> useful infrastructure for other things, too, like automatic catalog
> upgrades in minor releases, but I'm not volunteering to write that
> infrastructure right now.
This looks like a major project.
> > Alternatively, maybe we could have backends flag whether they've
> > taken ownership of their temp schemas or not, and let autovacuum
> > flush old temp tables if not?
>
> Yes, that seems like a possibly promising approach.
I did propose in my OP the idea of a PGPROC boolean flag that indicates
whether the temp namespace has been set up. If not, have autovac remove
those tables. I like this option better, but I fear it adds more
ProcArrayLock contention. Maybe I can just use a new LWLock to
coordinate that particular member of the ProcGlobal array ... (but then
it can no longer be a boolean.)
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-12-15 02:33:46 | Re: New function pg_stat_statements_reset_query() to reset statistics of a specific query |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-12-15 02:02:20 | Re: removal of dangling temp tables |