Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Strange issue with vacuum and temp tables

From: Jeff Frost <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Strange issue with vacuum and temp tables
Date: 2008-03-29 00:31:48
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.64.0803281728470.7978@discord.home.frostconsultingllc.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin
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 AmblerDate: 2008-03-29 02:40:02
Subject: Re: weird network issue
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-03-29 00:26:46
Subject: Re: Strange issue with vacuum and temp tables

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group