Re: [Fwd: Re: [GENERAL] temp schemas]

No, user error.

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org> wrote:
>
> May be a TODO item here.
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
>> To: Roberts, Jon <Jon(dot)Roberts(at)asurion(dot)com>
>> Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
>> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] temp schemas
>> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:23:10 -0400
>>
>> "Roberts, Jon" <Jon(dot)Roberts(at)asurion(dot)com> writes:
>> > I am noticing a large number of temp schemas in my database. We use
>> > temp tables but it doesn't appear that the schemas get dropped for some
>> > reason.
>>
>> That's intentional. There doesn't seem a lot of value in dropping a
>> catalog entry that'll just have to be created again later.
>>
>> > This greatly slows down how long it takes pgAdmin to connect
>> > because it retrieves thousands of pg_temp_% schemas.
>>
>> Why have you got thousands of them? If you are running with thousands
>> of active backends, may I suggest a connection pooler?
>>
>> (It might be a good idea to fix pgAdmin so it ignores other sessions'
>> temp schemas, though.)
>>
>> regards, tom lane
>>
> --
> Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE
> devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
> http://www.gunduz.org
>

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com