> On Oct 9, 2017, at 14:29, Tom Lane <tgl@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
anotherone come in right behind it...
--
-- Christophe Pettus xof@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