Re: [bug fix] Suppress "autovacuum: found orphan temp table" message - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [bug fix] Suppress "autovacuum: found orphan temp table" message
Date
Msg-id 20140722102359.GI4629@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [bug fix] Suppress "autovacuum: found orphan temp table" message  ("MauMau" <maumau307@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [bug fix] Suppress "autovacuum: found orphan temp table" message
Re: [bug fix] Suppress "autovacuum: found orphan temp table" message
List pgsql-hackers
On 2014-07-22 19:13:56 +0900, MauMau wrote:
> From: "Andres Freund" <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
> >On 2014-07-22 17:05:22 +0900, MauMau wrote:
> >>RemovePgTempFiles() frees the disk space by removing temp relation files
> >>at
> >>server start.
> >
> >But it's not called during a crash restart.
> 
> Yes, the comment of the function says:
> 
> * NOTE: we could, but don't, call this during a post-backend-crash restart
> * cycle.  The argument for not doing it is that someone might want to
> examine
> * the temp files for debugging purposes.  This does however mean that
> * OpenTemporaryFile had better allow for collision with an existing temp
> * file name.
> 
> But this is true if restart_after_crash = on in postgresql.conf, because the
> crash restart only occurs in that case.  However, in HA cluster, whether it
> is shared-disk or replication, restart_after_crash is set to off, isn't it?

In almost all setups I've seen it's set to on, even in HA scenarios.

> Moreover, as the comment says, the behavior of keeping leftover temp files
> is for debugging by developers.  It's not helpful for users, isn't it?  I
> thought messages of DEBUG level is more appropriate, because the behavior is
> for debugging purposes.

GRR. That doesn't change the fact that there'll be files left over after
a crash restart.

> Yes, so nobody can convince serious customers that the current behavior
> makes real sense.

I think you're making lots of noise over a trivial log message.

> Could you please reconsider this?

No. Just removing a warning isn't the way to solve this. If you want to
improve things you'll actually need to improve things not just stick
your head into the sand.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: 土卜皿
Date:
Subject: Re: how to reach D5 in tuplesort.c 's polyphase merge algorithm?
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Production block comparison facility