| From: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Alvaro Herrera' <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: removal of dangling temp tables |
| Date: | 2018-12-26 23:45:52 |
| Message-ID: | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1FB5DC66@G01JPEXMBYT05 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com]
> The more aggressive action is to backpatch 943576bddcb5 ("Make autovacuum
> more aggressive to remove orphaned temp tables") which is currently only
> in pg11. We would put the new PGPROC member at the end of the struct, to
> avoid ABI incompatibilities, but it'd bring trouble for extensions that
> put PGPROC in arrays. I checked the code of some known extensions; found
> that pglogical uses PGPROC, but only pointers to it, so it wouldn't be
> damaged by the proposed change AFAICS.
+1
I think this is a bug from a user's perspective that garbage is left. I want to believe that fixing bugs of PostgreSQL itself are prioritized over the ABI compatibility for extensions, if we have to choose one of them.
> Another possibly useful change is to make DISCARD ALL and DISCARD TEMP delete
> everything in what would be the backend's temp namespace, even if it hasn't
> been initialized yet. This would cover the case where a connection pooler
> keeps the connection open for a very long time, which I think is a common
> case.
That sounds good.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-12-26 23:51:56 | Re: removal of dangling temp tables |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-26 22:55:36 | Re: pgsql: Fix failure to check for open() or fsync() failures. |