Re: pg_toast_temp_xx AND pg_temp_xx SCHEMAS

From: Vyacheslav Kalinin <vka(at)mgcp(dot)com>
To: Fernando Hevia <fhevia(at)ip-tel(dot)com(dot)ar>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_toast_temp_xx AND pg_temp_xx SCHEMAS
Date: 2009-03-10 20:05:18
Message-ID: 9b1af80e0903101305v1a1a0584oc4d10e086e8c74fd@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> They're just there to hold temporary tables (so that the names of such
> tables don't conflict with any non-temporary tables). The reason they
> seem to accumulate is we only create one when needed, and there's one
> for each concurrently executing backend if it creates any temp tables.

Hm, do they get garbage-collected in any way? I have several such schemes
that won't disappear even though no other sessions but one is there.
On a side note: I can drop temporary tables of other sessions via "DROP
pg_temp_xx.table" (although I can't seem to affect table data seen from
other session). Is there any security issues/gotchas here?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gerd König 2009-03-10 21:35:21 panic: index siblings mismatch
Previous Message Andreas Kretschmer 2009-03-10 19:59:43 Re: Include script within a script