Re: Should autovacuum do a database wide vacuum near transaction limit?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Should autovacuum do a database wide vacuum near transaction limit? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 28994.1295724856@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Should autovacuum do a database wide vacuum near transaction limit? ("John Lister" <john.lister-ps@kickstone.com>) |
Список | pgsql-admin |
"John Lister" <john.lister-ps@kickstone.com> writes: >>> Was this expected behaviour with temporary tables? >> It's more expected behavior when you have long running transactions. >> I haven't seen it caused by temp tables. Was the parent process in a >> really long transaction or just open a long time without one? > The first thing I checked was for open transactions, but alas there were > none. I suspect the process had been open a long time without creating any > transactions, but don't know which process it was at this point, the > connection was owned by my colleague so need to check with him or look for > dead applications... It's possible for temp tables to remain behind after a backend crash. Not clear if that's your situation or not, but it does happen. Such tables will get cleaned out whenever the owning pg_temp_nnn schema is next used to hold temp tables --- but if it's a high-numbered schema that might not happen for a long time. Also, in 8.4 and up, autovacuum will forcibly drop orphaned temp tables once they get old enough to start creating xid-wraparound issues. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: