Tom Lane wrote: > Christophe Pettus <x...@thebuild.com> writes: > > 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 another one come in right behind it... > > Hmm, I tried to reproduce this and could not. I experimented with > various permutations of this:
This problem is probably related to commit 9b013dc238c, which AFAICS is only in pg10, not 9.5. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
