From: | "Harald Armin Massa" <haraldarminmassa(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: when do pg_temp SCHEMAS get purged? |
Date: | 2006-08-02 13:05:12 |
Message-ID: | 7be3f35d0608020605k6d04d39en9f5c7e44f0d0ac9d@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom,
>
> > Those schemas seem to get more and more and more. Is anyprocess taking
> care
> > of purging the ones no longer needed?
>
> We don't bother. One row in pg_namespace is not worth removing,
> especially when it's likely to be needed again someday.
>
thanks for the information! Now I understand: every backend gets it's own
pg_tempxx, that is why in production those number rose fairly quickly; and
the pg_tempxx schemas gets recycled after the backend exits.
Now if only I would sell my software after maximum simultanuos concurrend
users, I would have a very good, free measurement :)
Thank you very much,
Harald
--
GHUM Harald Massa
persuadere et programmare
Harald Armin Massa
Reinsburgstraße 202b
70197 Stuttgart
0173/9409607
-
Let's set so double the killer delete select all.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oisin Glynn | 2006-08-02 13:15:46 | Re: LISTEN considered dangerous |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-02 12:58:04 | Re: when do pg_temp SCHEMAS get purged? |