On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Frost <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com> writes:
>> A look at the code revealed that the temp tables were created via normal
>> methods, so I'm curious to know if there is a bug regarding temp tables not
>> going away on Postgresql-8.2.x after the connection is closed?
> You aren't the first to report such a thing, but nobody has the foggiest
> idea how it could happen short of a backend crash. Have they had any
> crashes lately (or more specifically, around the mod times of those
> files, if you checked them)?
> Also, were the pg_temp schemas you zapped particularly high-numbered?
> Low-numbered ones would get cleaned out on the next use, but if the
> crash happened at a peak in the number of active backends it's easy
> to believe the files might hang around for awhile.
I inquired whether there had been crashes and they indicated no. I've
requested a mining through the logs to see if there were any backend crashes,
but probably won't get the info till next week.
Looks like the highest was pg_temp_534.
Jeff Frost, Owner <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com>
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954
In response to
pgsql-admin by date
|Next:||From: Shane Ambler||Date: 2008-03-29 02:40:02|
|Subject: Re: weird network issue|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-03-29 00:26:46|
|Subject: Re: Strange issue with vacuum and temp tables |