Horton

Re: removal of dangling temp tables

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-12-14T18:46:03Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 6:35 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Hm.  It *could*, if we wanted it to run some transactions after
> finishing recovery.

It'd have to launch a separate process per database.  That would be
useful infrastructure for other things, too, like automatic catalog
upgrades in minor releases, but I'm not volunteering to write that
infrastructure right now.

> Alternatively, maybe we could have backends flag whether they've
> taken ownership of their temp schemas or not, and let autovacuum
> flush old temp tables if not?

Yes, that seems like a possibly promising approach.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Commits

  1. Have DISCARD ALL/TEMP remove leftover temp tables

  2. Make autovacuum more selective about temp tables to keep

  3. Make autovacuum more aggressive to remove orphaned temp tables

  4. autovacuum: Drop orphan temp tables more quickly but with more caution.