Horton

Thread

  1. Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2008-06-27T15:45:13Z

    This thread
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-01/msg00134.php
kind of wandered off into the weeds after identifying a semi-related
bug in CLUSTER, but the original problem still remains: if a backend
crashes after creating some temp tables, the tables remain present.
Such tables will get recycled next time someone reuses the same
pg_temp_NNN schema.  But if the failed backend had been occupying an
unusually high-numbered BackendId slot, then its pg_temp_NNN schema
might go unused for a long time --- long enough for the temp tables to
pose an xid-wraparound problem.  There's another report of this issue
today in pgsql-general.

The only solution proposed in that thread was to auto-delete temp
tables at postmaster restart; which I opposed on the grounds that
throwing away data right after a crash was a terrible idea from a
forensic standpoint.  I still think that, but I had another idea
about how to cope with the situation.  It's reasonably easy to
tell (by looking into the sinval state) whether a given BackendId
slot is actually in use, so we could detect whether a temp table
actually belongs to a live backend or not.  What I'm thinking is
we should adjust autovacuum so that it will apply anti-wraparound 
vacuuming operations even to temp tables, if they belong to pg_temp
schemas that belong to inactive BackendId slots.  This'd fix the
wraparound issue without any risk of discarding data that someone
might want back.

Note that this should be safe even if someone claims the pg_temp_NNN
schema and tries to drop the old temp table while we're vacuuming it.
Operations on temp tables take the normal types of locks, so that
will get interlocked properly.

A small hole in this idea is that the BackendId slot might be occupied
by some new backend that actually hasn't created any temp tables yet
(hence not "taken possession" of the pg_temp_NNN schema).  We could fix
that by making each backend's has-temp-tables state globally visible.
However, I'm inclined to think it's not really an issue, because you
wouldn't get into trouble unless this was always the case over many
repeated autovacuum visits to the table, which seems pretty improbable.

Another issue is that leftover temp tables would be significantly more
likely to be self-inconsistent than normal tables, since operations on
them are not WAL-logged and it's entirely likely that the owning backend
crashed with some dirty pages not written out from its local buffers.
AFAICS this shouldn't be any big problem for vacuuming the table proper,
since heap pages are pretty independent, at least at the level
understood by plain vacuum.  There is a risk that indexes would be
corrupt enough to make vacuum error out, thus preventing the xid
wraparound cleanup from completing.  But that leaves us no worse off
than we are now, and at least there would be signs of distress in the
postmaster log for the DBA to see.

Or we could have autovacuum just drop orphaned temp tables, *if*
they have gotten old enough to need anti-wraparound vacuuming.
While I'm still uncomfortable with having autovac drop anything,
at least this would avoid the worst cases of "gee I really needed
that data to investigate the crash".  The main attractions of this
idea are avoiding the corrupt-index issue and not doing vacuuming
work that's 99.99% sure to be useless.

Thoughts?

			regards, tom lane

  2. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> — 2008-06-27T16:12:20Z

    "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

> The main attractions of this idea are avoiding the corrupt-index issue and
> not doing vacuuming work that's 99.99% sure to be useless.

It does seem strange to me to vacuum a table you're pretty sure is useless
*and* quite likely corrupt.

Could autovacuum emit log messages as soon as it sees such tables and start
dropping them at some point later?

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com
  Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services!

  3. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> — 2008-06-27T16:24:41Z

    Tom Lane wrote:
> Another issue is that leftover temp tables would be significantly more
> likely to be self-inconsistent than normal tables, since operations on
> them are not WAL-logged and it's entirely likely that the owning backend
> crashed with some dirty pages not written out from its local buffers.
> AFAICS this shouldn't be any big problem for vacuuming the table proper,
> since heap pages are pretty independent, at least at the level
> understood by plain vacuum. 

There's the torn-page problem as well. Highly improbable, but it seems 
possible to me to have an inconsistent heap page with for example broken 
redirecting line pointers or something like that, that would cause 
crashes or assertion failures on vacuum.

> Or we could have autovacuum just drop orphaned temp tables, *if*
> they have gotten old enough to need anti-wraparound vacuuming.
> While I'm still uncomfortable with having autovac drop anything,
> at least this would avoid the worst cases of "gee I really needed
> that data to investigate the crash".  The main attractions of this
> idea are avoiding the corrupt-index issue and not doing vacuuming
> work that's 99.99% sure to be useless.

That sounds a lot simpler and better to me.

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

  4. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2008-06-27T16:35:16Z

    Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Could autovacuum emit log messages as soon as it sees such tables and start
> dropping them at some point later?

We might have to rearrange the logic a bit to make that happen (I'm not
sure what order things get tested in), but a log message does seem like
a good idea.  I'd go for logging anytime an orphaned table is seen,
and dropping once it's past the anti-wraparound horizon.

			regards, tom lane

  5. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2008-06-27T16:36:56Z

    * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> The only solution proposed in that thread was to auto-delete temp
> tables at postmaster restart; which I opposed on the grounds that
> throwing away data right after a crash was a terrible idea from a
> forensic standpoint.

Why not just rename the files out of the way, and nuke the entries from
the catalog?  Something like "filename.crash" or similar that an admin
can have scripts in place to check for and who could then go handle as
appropriate (remove, investigate, etc).  If there's data in the catalog
that you think might be bad to lose, then include it in some kind of
format in a "filename.crash.catalog" or similar file.  Maybe also spit
out a warning or error or something on backend start when this rename is
done, and on subsequent starts if the file remains.

What I really don't like is keeping something that is likely useless and
possibly deadly to a backend if corrupt & accessed sitting around.  I'm
also not a big fan of keeping what is essentially 'garbage' around in
the catalog which could just lead to confusion later if someone's
looking at "what actual temporary tables should there be" and seeing
others that they wouldn't expect.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

  6. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> — 2008-06-27T16:43:09Z

    Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > The only solution proposed in that thread was to auto-delete temp
> > tables at postmaster restart; which I opposed on the grounds that
> > throwing away data right after a crash was a terrible idea from a
> > forensic standpoint.
> 
> Why not just rename the files out of the way, and nuke the entries from
> the catalog?  Something like "filename.crash" or similar that an admin
> can have scripts in place to check for and who could then go handle as
> appropriate (remove, investigate, etc).

This was my thought too.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

  7. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2008-06-27T16:43:51Z

    Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> The only solution proposed in that thread was to auto-delete temp
>> tables at postmaster restart; which I opposed on the grounds that
>> throwing away data right after a crash was a terrible idea from a
>> forensic standpoint.

> Why not just rename the files out of the way, and nuke the entries from
> the catalog?

It's usually tough to make any sense of the contents of a table if you
don't have the catalog entries.  Anyway, that approach would put the
onus on the admin to clean things up eventually, which isn't all that
appealing.

Bear in mind that temp table contents are subject to summary deletion
during normal operation anyway.  What I opposed back in January was
deleting them *immediately* after a crash, but that doesn't mean I'm
in favor of keeping them indefinitely.

			regards, tom lane

  8. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> — 2008-06-27T16:52:10Z

    Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > Could autovacuum emit log messages as soon as it sees such tables and start
> > dropping them at some point later?
> 
> We might have to rearrange the logic a bit to make that happen (I'm not
> sure what order things get tested in), but a log message does seem like
> a good idea.  I'd go for logging anytime an orphaned table is seen,
> and dropping once it's past the anti-wraparound horizon.

I don't think this requires much of a rearrangement -- see autovacuum.c
1921ff.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

  9. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> — 2008-06-27T17:14:15Z

    
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Or we could have autovacuum just drop orphaned temp tables, *if*
>> they have gotten old enough to need anti-wraparound vacuuming.
>> While I'm still uncomfortable with having autovac drop anything,
>> at least this would avoid the worst cases of "gee I really needed
>> that data to investigate the crash".  The main attractions of this
>> idea are avoiding the corrupt-index issue and not doing vacuuming
>> work that's 99.99% sure to be useless.
>
> That sounds a lot simpler and better to me.

Yeah, when I read the original this one struck me as almost a no-brainer 
choice.

cheers

andrew

  10. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2008-06-27T22:31:55Z

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> We might have to rearrange the logic a bit to make that happen (I'm not
>> sure what order things get tested in), but a log message does seem like
>> a good idea.  I'd go for logging anytime an orphaned table is seen,
>> and dropping once it's past the anti-wraparound horizon.

> I don't think this requires much of a rearrangement -- see autovacuum.c
> 1921ff.

So everyone is happy with the concept of doing it as above?  If so,
I'll work on it this weekend sometime.

			regards, tom lane

  11. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Matthew T. O'Connor <matthew@zeut.net> — 2008-06-27T23:16:04Z

    Tom Lane wrote:
> We might have to rearrange the logic a bit to make that happen (I'm not
> sure what order things get tested in), but a log message does seem like
> a good idea.  I'd go for logging anytime an orphaned table is seen,
> and dropping once it's past the anti-wraparound horizon.

Is there an easy way for an Admin clean-up the lost temp tables that 
autovacuum is complaining about?  It seems like it could be along time 
and a lot of log messages between when they are first orphaned and and 
finally dropped due to anti-wraparound protection.

  12. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Michael Paesold <mpaesold@gmx.at> — 2008-06-28T00:32:50Z

    Tom Lane writes:

> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> We might have to rearrange the logic a bit to make that happen  
>>> (I'm not
>>> sure what order things get tested in), but a log message does seem  
>>> like
>>> a good idea.  I'd go for logging anytime an orphaned table is seen,
>>> and dropping once it's past the anti-wraparound horizon.
>
>> I don't think this requires much of a rearrangement -- see  
>> autovacuum.c
>> 1921ff.
>
> So everyone is happy with the concept of doing it as above?  If so,
> I'll work on it this weekend sometime.

I think it is the most reasonable thing to do. Regarding the log  
messages about orphaned tables, it would be nice if you could add a  
hint/detail message explaining how to cleanup those tables. If that's  
possible.

Best Regards
Michael Paesold

  13. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2008-06-28T02:34:26Z

    "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
> Is there an easy way for an Admin clean-up the lost temp tables that 
> autovacuum is complaining about?  It seems like it could be along time 
> and a lot of log messages between when they are first orphaned and and 
> finally dropped due to anti-wraparound protection.

Drop the particular temp schema, maybe?  The log message should probably
make sure to specify the schema name.

			regards, tom lane

  14. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2008-07-01T00:27:40Z

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> We might have to rearrange the logic a bit to make that happen (I'm not
>> sure what order things get tested in), but a log message does seem like
>> a good idea.  I'd go for logging anytime an orphaned table is seen,
>> and dropping once it's past the anti-wraparound horizon.

> I don't think this requires much of a rearrangement -- see autovacuum.c
> 1921ff.

Hmm, maybe I'm missing something but I see no good way to do it without
refactoring relation_check_autovac.  Since that function is only called
in one place, I'm thinking of just inlining it; do you see a reason
not to?

			regards, tom lane

  15. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> — 2008-07-01T01:13:44Z

    Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> We might have to rearrange the logic a bit to make that happen (I'm not
> >> sure what order things get tested in), but a log message does seem like
> >> a good idea.  I'd go for logging anytime an orphaned table is seen,
> >> and dropping once it's past the anti-wraparound horizon.
> 
> > I don't think this requires much of a rearrangement -- see autovacuum.c
> > 1921ff.
> 
> Hmm, maybe I'm missing something but I see no good way to do it without
> refactoring relation_check_autovac.

Hmm, oops :-)

> Since that function is only called in one place, I'm thinking of just
> inlining it; do you see a reason not to?

Nope, go ahead.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

  16. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> — 2008-07-11T21:19:06Z

    On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 12:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> The only solution proposed in that thread was to auto-delete temp
> >> tables at postmaster restart; which I opposed on the grounds that
> >> throwing away data right after a crash was a terrible idea from a
> >> forensic standpoint.
> 
> > Why not just rename the files out of the way, and nuke the entries from
> > the catalog?
> 
> It's usually tough to make any sense of the contents of a table if you
> don't have the catalog entries.  Anyway, that approach would put the
> onus on the admin to clean things up eventually, which isn't all that
> appealing.

We need to learn to live without the catalog entries anyway.

In Hot Standby mode, creating a temp table would cause a write to the
catalog, which would then fail. If we want to allow creating temp tables
in Hot Standby mode then we must prevent them from inserting and then
later deleting them from the catalog.

So it would seem that we need a way of handling temp tables that doesn't
rely on catalog entries at all.

My proposal would be that we identify all temp table names by the xid
that first creates them (and their name...). In memory we would keep
track of which files go with which tablenames, so we can still locate
them easily. If we lose that context we can always see which files are
in need of vacuum using that xid.

Are we also at risk from very long lived sessions that use temp tables?
Do we need to put in a check for sessions to vacuum old temp tables that
are still valid?

I'm happy to work on this if a solution to all of the above emerges.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

  17. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2008-07-11T21:26:15Z

    Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> So it would seem that we need a way of handling temp tables that doesn't
> rely on catalog entries at all.

That's a complete non-starter; I need go no farther than to point out
that it would break clients that expect to see their temp tables
reflected in pg_class and so forth.

There's been some idle musing in the past about causing pg_class and
friends to have inheritance-child tables that are "temp", both in the
sense of being backend-local and of not having guaranteed storage,
and arranging to store the rows needed for a backend's temp tables
in there.  There's still a long way to go to make that happen, but
at least it would be reasonably transparent on the client side.

> Are we also at risk from very long lived sessions that use temp tables?

Yeah, one of the bigger problems with it is that no one else could
even see whether a backend's temp table was at risk of wraparound
(or even before actual wraparound, in need of freezing because pg_clog
is supposed to be truncated).  Possibly a backend could advertise a
min frozen xid for its temp tables in the PGPROC array.

			regards, tom lane

  18. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> — 2008-07-11T23:41:48Z

    On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 17:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > So it would seem that we need a way of handling temp tables that doesn't
> > rely on catalog entries at all.
> 
> That's a complete non-starter; I need go no farther than to point out
> that it would break clients that expect to see their temp tables
> reflected in pg_class and so forth.

What does the SQL Standard say about the Information Schema I wonder/

> There's been some idle musing in the past about causing pg_class and
> friends to have inheritance-child tables that are "temp", both in the
> sense of being backend-local and of not having guaranteed storage,
> and arranging to store the rows needed for a backend's temp tables
> in there.  There's still a long way to go to make that happen, but
> at least it would be reasonably transparent on the client side.

OK, very cool if we could make it work. I realised it would have to
apply all the way through to pg_statistic.

Brain dump a little more, while we're on the subject? This aspect is
something I've not spent any time on yet, so even a few rungs up the
ladder will help lots. Thanks.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

  19. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> — 2008-07-11T23:57:24Z

    On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:41 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 17:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> > So it would seem that we need a way of handling temp tables that doesn't
>> > rely on catalog entries at all.
>>
>> That's a complete non-starter; I need go no farther than to point out
>> that it would break clients that expect to see their temp tables
>> reflected in pg_class and so forth.
>
> What does the SQL Standard say about the Information Schema I wonder/

Many apps were written long before we had one. Not too mention that it
doesn't provide anything like all the info that PostgreSQL-specific
tool (though not necessarily user apps) would likely need.

-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com

  20. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> — 2008-07-12T08:16:43Z

    On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 00:57 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:41 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 17:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> >> > So it would seem that we need a way of handling temp tables that doesn't
> >> > rely on catalog entries at all.
> >>
> >> That's a complete non-starter; I need go no farther than to point out
> >> that it would break clients that expect to see their temp tables
> >> reflected in pg_class and so forth.
> >
> > What does the SQL Standard say about the Information Schema I wonder/
> 
> Many apps were written long before we had one. Not too mention that it
> doesn't provide anything like all the info that PostgreSQL-specific
> tool (though not necessarily user apps) would likely need.

So are you saying

a) that other sessions need to be able to see pg_class entries for
temporary tables created by different sessions?

b) that you need to be able to see pg_class entries for temporary tables
created only in your session?

Hopefully you just mean (b)??

a) would simply not be possible at the same time as having us avoid
pg_class writes in Hot Standby mode. We would have a choice of seeing
temp tables, or allowing temp tables to work in Hot Standby, not both.

b) would is possible, if we follow the route of taking a locally
inherited copy of pg_class.

The SQL Standard Information Schema does show LOCAL TEMPORARY and GLOBAL
TEMPORARY tables. Our implementation of temp tables differs from the
standard, so I think (b) is fully in line with that.

If anybody did want (a), then I'd suggest that we use the keyword GLOBAL
TEMPORARY table to denote something that would be put in pg_class and
visible to all, and thus unusable in hot standby mode. I'm not planning
on building that.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

  21. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> — 2008-07-12T08:56:21Z

    On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> So are you saying
>
> a) that other sessions need to be able to see pg_class entries for
> temporary tables created by different sessions?
>
> b) that you need to be able to see pg_class entries for temporary tables
> created only in your session?
>
> Hopefully you just mean (b)??

Not necessarily - it may be useful for an admin to peek at what tables
are created by other sessions. I don't feel strongly about that
though, moreso b).

> The SQL Standard Information Schema does show LOCAL TEMPORARY and GLOBAL
> TEMPORARY tables. Our implementation of temp tables differs from the
> standard, so I think (b) is fully in line with that.

My point is that any good admin tool will use pg_class directly, as
information_schema doesn't include any of the Postgres specifc info
that such a tool would want.

FYI, pgAdmin doesn't do anything with temp tables at the moment anyway
- I'm thinking of other apps that may do. An inheritance schema for
pg_class may well work for them.


-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

  22. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> — 2008-07-12T15:51:59Z

    On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 09:56 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> An inheritance schema for pg_class may well work for them.

OK, proposal is something like this:

We must avoid writes to many system tables to allow temp tables to
function.
Priority 1
pg_class - base definition of table
pg_attribute - columns
pg_attrdef - defaults
pg_statistic - ability to store ANALYZE and VACUUM results
pg_inherits

Priority 2 - would we need any of these?
pg_depend
pg_rules
pg_rewrite
pg_triggers
pg_indexes

Each of the above tables would have a matching temp_* version.

We wouldn't want to create a full temp schema every time we connect, we
would only do that when a temp table was created. 

When first temp table requested we create temp schema, using reserved
oids established at bootstrap time. We'll need a temp-bootstrap process
for the creation of temp_pg_class and temp_pg_attribute, then we can
create the other catalog tables more normally.

We hack find_inheritance_children() so it returns the oid of the
inherited temp catalog table for appropriate catalog tables. That way we
don't need to write to pg_inherits in order to have the catalog tables
recognise they have inheritance children.

So all direct accesses to catalog tables would result in temp tables
showing up in the result set, but only within the same session.

In Hot Standby mode we would ignore the inheritance hint and *always*
search pg_inherits every time we access a table.

Would also need to go through all catalog code so that it accessed the
correct catalog table depending upon whether its permanent or temp.

Seems like it would be a fairly big patch. The temp-bootstrap process is
still just hand-waving though.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

  23. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2008-07-12T16:04:31Z

    Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Seems like it would be a fairly big patch. The temp-bootstrap process is
> still just hand-waving though.

Yeah, and it seems fairly messy.  The idea I'd had was that all the
catalog entries for (a single set of) inheritance child tables are Just
There in the output of initdb.  The tricky part is that each session that
makes use of these tables needs to have its own copy of their contents.
(I note that this is real close to the SQL spec's notion of how a temp
table works --- maybe we could usefully combine this with a patch to
provide spec-compliant temp tables?)  I think that could be solved with
some magic that made their pg_class entries reflect a per-session
relfilenode value.  This seems no worse than your proposed magic in
pg_inherit, and it eliminates the problem of needing to "bootstrap" all
the temp-file catalog infrastructure in every session.

			regards, tom lane

  24. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> — 2008-07-12T16:47:07Z

    On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 12:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > Seems like it would be a fairly big patch. The temp-bootstrap process is
> > still just hand-waving though.
> 
> Yeah, and it seems fairly messy.  The idea I'd had was that all the
> catalog entries for (a single set of) inheritance child tables are Just
> There in the output of initdb.  

Yeh, not having a temp-boostrap process at all is best.

> The tricky part is that each session that
> makes use of these tables needs to have its own copy of their contents.
> I think that could be solved with
> some magic that made their pg_class entries reflect a per-session
> relfilenode value.  This seems no worse than your proposed magic in
> pg_inherit, and it eliminates the problem of needing to "bootstrap"
> all the temp-file catalog infrastructure in every session.

Agreed.

Perhaps the magic would be to create sub-directories in the pg_temp
namespace based upon backend pid. That way all relfilenode values would
be the same, but would refer to different objects.

Side thought... We can't generate Oids in Hot Standby mode, since
they'll end up duplicating values from the primary. We probably need to
reserve the top 16384 Oid values for use as temp object Oids.

> (I note that this is real close to the SQL spec's notion of how a temp
> table works --- maybe we could usefully combine this with a patch to
> provide spec-compliant temp tables?)  

Yeh, I read that and thought something similar. But we're talking about
temp additions to catalog tables, not all temp tables. If we tried to
implement spec-compliant temp tables we would need to write to catalog
tables again, which is what we are trying to avoid!

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

  25. Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2008-07-12T16:48:41Z

    Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Yeh, I read that and thought something similar. But we're talking about
> temp additions to catalog tables, not all temp tables. If we tried to
> implement spec-compliant temp tables we would need to write to catalog
> tables again, which is what we are trying to avoid!

No, because a spec-compliant temp table is a persistent object and
*should* be reflected in the permanent catalogs.  What you meant to say
is that hot-standby sessions would only be able to use our traditional
type of temp tables.

[ thinks for a bit ... ] actually, maybe a hot standby session could be
allowed to use a *pre-existing* spec-compliant temp table.  It couldn't
make a new one though.

			regards, tom lane