Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up?

<p dir="ltr"><br /> Dne 23.1.2014 22:04 "Mark Kirkwood" <<a
href="mailto:mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz">mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz</a>>napsal(a):<br /> ><br /> > On
24/01/1409:49, Tom Lane wrote:<br /> >><br /> >> 2. What have you got that is requesting exclusive lock on
pg_attribute?That seems like a pretty unfriendly behavior in itself. regards, tom lane <br /> ><br /> ><br />
>I've seen this sort of problem where every db session was busily creating temporary tables. I never got to the find
*why*they needed to make so many, but it seemed like a bad idea.<br /> ><p dir="ltr">Our customer had same problem
with temp tables by intensively plpgsql functions. For higher load a temp tables are performance and stability killer.
Vacuumof pg attrib has very ugly impacts :(<p dir="ltr">Regars<p dir="ltr">Pavel<p dir="ltr">After redesign - without
tmptables - his applications works well.<p dir="ltr">We needs a global temp tables<br /><p dir="ltr">> Regards<br />
><br/> > Mark<br /> ><br /> ><br /> ><br /> ><br /> > -- <br /> > Sent via pgsql-hackers
mailinglist (<a href="mailto:pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org">pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org</a>)<br /> > To make changes
toyour subscription:<br /> > <a
href="http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers">http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers</a><br/>