okay, thank you Tom. There were no crashes of the instance, but some issues with the connected application, resulting in 'could not receive data from client: Connection reset by peer' and 'unexpected EOF on client connection with an open transaction'. So if this might have left behind temp tables causing the errors, should I try to delete these pg_temp tables?
Regards, Tobias On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 17:10, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Tobias Lott <tobias.l...@devoteam.com> writes: > > Yes that's strange. A lot of pg_XX tables are skipped, but some of these > > pg_temp schemas cause errors. > > Could it be connected to a migration of the database (from an instance > > running PostgreSQL 9.6 to an instance running PostgreSQL 12) done a few > > weeks ago? > > I wouldn't have expected a migration to bring any temp tables forward. > > Have you had any crashes on this instance (post-migration)? A possible > theory is that crashed backend(s) left behind some temp tables, and then > if vacuumdb's backend process re-uses the backend ID (which determines > the NN in pg_temp_NN) of one of those sessions, it would think those > temp tables are its own and try to vacuum them. Or at least I think > it might. That still fails to explain the permissions errors in any > detail, but at least it offers a reason why vacuumdb would even be > going anywhere near a temp table. > > regards, tom lane > -- Tobias Lott Technical Consultant Region South West +49 151 23649035 <+49+151+23649035> tobias.l...@devoteam.com [image: Banner EVP Intelligence] [image: Devoteam at Linkedin] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/devoteam> [image: Devoteam at Youtube] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrk4lQJ82bI&t=3s> [image: Devoteam at Twitter] <https://twitter.com/devoteam>
