Github user jbertram commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2388#discussion_r227609075
--- Diff:
artemis-server/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/postoffice/impl/PostOfficeImpl.java
---
@@ -1540,6 +1561,75 @@ public void run() {
}
}
+ private final class AddressQueueReaper extends
ActiveMQScheduledComponent {
+
+ AddressQueueReaper(ScheduledExecutorService scheduledExecutorService,
+ Executor executor,
+ long checkPeriod,
+ TimeUnit timeUnit,
+ boolean onDemand) {
+ super(scheduledExecutorService, executor, checkPeriod, timeUnit,
onDemand);
+ }
+
+ @Override
+ public void run() {
+ Map<SimpleString, Binding> nameMap = addressManager.getBindings();
+
+ List<Queue> queues = new ArrayList<>();
+
+ for (Binding binding : nameMap.values()) {
+ if (binding.getType() == BindingType.LOCAL_QUEUE) {
+ Queue queue = (Queue) binding.getBindable();
+
+ queues.add(queue);
+ }
+ }
+
+ for (Queue queue : queues) {
+ int consumerCount = queue.getConsumerCount();
+ long messageCount = queue.getMessageCount();
+ boolean autoCreated = queue.isAutoCreated();
+ long consumerRemovedTimestamp =
queue.getConsumerRemovedTimestamp();
+
+ if (!queue.isInternalQueue() && autoCreated && messageCount ==
0 && consumerCount == 0 && consumerRemovedTimestamp != -1) {
+ SimpleString queueName = queue.getName();
+ AddressSettings settings =
addressSettingsRepository.getMatch(queue.getAddress().toString());
+ if (settings.isAutoDeleteQueues() &&
(System.currentTimeMillis() - consumerRemovedTimestamp >=
settings.getAutoDeleteQueuesDelay())) {
+ if (ActiveMQServerLogger.LOGGER.isDebugEnabled()) {
+ ActiveMQServerLogger.LOGGER.info("deleting
auto-created queue \"" + queueName + ".\" consumerCount = " + consumerCount +
"; messageCount = " + messageCount + "; isAutoDeleteQueues = " +
settings.isAutoDeleteQueues());
+ }
+
+ try {
+ server.destroyQueue(queueName, null, true, false);
--- End diff --
@michaelandrepearce is right, but I think it's worth mitigating the risk
within the bounds of the current locking scheme. What I don't want to do is
introduce additional locking or synchronization.
---
