On 24/01/14 10:09, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Mark Kirkwood
> <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz> wrote:
>> On 24/01/14 09:49, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> 2. What have you got that is requesting exclusive lock on pg_attribute?
>>> That seems like a pretty unfriendly behavior in itself. regards, tom lane
>> I've seen this sort of problem where every db session was busily creating
>> temporary tables. I never got to the find *why* they needed to make so many,
>> but it seemed like a bad idea.
> But... how does that result on a vacuum-incompatible lock request
> against pg_attribute?
>
> I see that it'll insert lots of rows into pg_attribute, and maybe
> later delete them, but none of that blocks vacuum.
>
That was my thought too - if I see it happening again here (was a year
or so ago that I saw some serious pg_attribute bloat) I'll dig deeper.
regards
Mark