From: Tom Lane []
> I just read through this thread for the first time; sorry for not paying
> attention sooner.

Don't mind, please.  It's very happy that you gave attention now.

> I'm uncomfortable with all the discussion of changing the autovacuum
> launcher's algorithm; all of that seems complicated and unsure of making
> anyone's life better.  It definitely does nothing for the problem
> originally stated, that autovacuum is skipping an orphaned temp table
> altogether.  That's not relevant to the actually proposed patch; I'm just
> saying that I'm not sure anything useful would come of that.

Yes.  Sawada-san is addressing the autovacuum launcher algorithm in another 

> The reason that a temp table might stay orphaned for a long time, if we're
> speaking of an app that does use temp tables, is that it's in a very
> high-numbered temp schema and only once in a blue moon does the database
> have enough connections for that temp schema to be used at all.  Forcing
> on-connection cleaning doesn't fix that.

Uh, you're right.

> So the correct fix is to improve autovacuum's check to discover whether
> an old temp table is orphaned, so that it isn't fooled by putative owner
> processes that are connected to some other DB.  Step 2 of the proposed patch
> tries to do that, but it's only half right: we need a change near line 2264
> not only line 2090.  (Evidently, we need either a comment that the logic

> is repeated, or else refactor so that there's only one copy.)

I see...

> Now, you can argue that autovacuum's check can be fooled by an "owner"
> backend that is connected to the current DB but hasn't actually taken
> possession of its assigned temp schema (and hence the table in question
> really is orphaned after all).  This edge case could be taken care of by
> having backends clear their temp schema immediately, as in step 1 of the
> patch.  But I still think that that is an expensive way to catch what would
> be a really infrequent case.  Perhaps a better idea is to have backends
> advertise in PGPROC whether they have taken possession of their assigned
> temp schema, and then autovacuum could ignore putative owners that aren't
> showing that flag.

That autovacuum-driven approach sounds interesting.  But it seems to require 
some new locking to prevent a race condition between the autovacuum launcher 
and the backend:  autovacuum launcher thinks that a temp schema is not owned by 
anyone, then a backend beings to use that temp schema, and autovacuum launcher 
deletes temp tables in that schema.

> Or we could just do nothing about that, on the grounds
> that nobody has shown the case to be worth worrying about.
> Temp schemas that are sufficiently low-numbered to be likely to have an
> apparent owner are also likely to get cleaned out by actual temp table
> creation reasonably often, so I'm not at all convinced that we need a
> mechanism that covers this case.  We do need something for the cross-DB
> case though, because even a very low-numbered temp schema can be problematic
> if it's in a seldom-used DB, which seems to be the case that was complained
> of originally.

Yes, the original problem was the low-numbered temp schema (pg_temp_3) which 
pg_rewind had used.  So we want to rescue this case.

> On the whole, my vote is to fix and apply step 2, and leave it at that.

Takayuki Tsunakawa

Reply via email to