> On Oct 9, 2017, at 14:29, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Hmm. Creating or dropping a temp table does take AccessExclusiveLock, > just as it does for a non-temp table. In principle we'd not have to > transmit those locks to standbys, but I doubt that the WAL code has > enough knowledge to filter them out. So a lot of temp tables and > a lot of separate subtransactions could be a nasty combination.
The problem indeed appear to be a very large number of subtransactions, each one creating a temp table, inside a single transaction. It's made worse by one of those transactions finally getting replayed on the secondary, only to have another one come in right behind it... -- -- Christophe Pettus x...@thebuild.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
