Actually, might it be an idea to stick the temp tables in their own "subnode", that won't be loaded unless someone actually intentionally looks at it?
//mha Dave Page wrote: > No, user error. > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> May be a TODO item here. >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: Roberts, Jon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] temp schemas >>> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:23:10 -0400 >>> >>> "Roberts, Jon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>> I am noticing a large number of temp schemas in my database. We use >>>> temp tables but it doesn't appear that the schemas get dropped for some >>>> reason. >>> That's intentional. There doesn't seem a lot of value in dropping a >>> catalog entry that'll just have to be created again later. >>> >>>> This greatly slows down how long it takes pgAdmin to connect >>>> because it retrieves thousands of pg_temp_% schemas. >>> Why have you got thousands of them? If you are running with thousands >>> of active backends, may I suggest a connection pooler? >>> >>> (It might be a good idea to fix pgAdmin so it ignores other sessions' >>> temp schemas, though.) >>> >>> regards, tom lane >>> >> -- >> Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE >> devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr >> http://www.gunduz.org >> > > > -- Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
