Github user jbertram commented on a diff in the pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2388#discussion_r227609075 --- Diff: artemis-server/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/postoffice/impl/PostOfficeImpl.java --- @@ -1540,6 +1561,75 @@ public void run() { } } + private final class AddressQueueReaper extends ActiveMQScheduledComponent { + + AddressQueueReaper(ScheduledExecutorService scheduledExecutorService, + Executor executor, + long checkPeriod, + TimeUnit timeUnit, + boolean onDemand) { + super(scheduledExecutorService, executor, checkPeriod, timeUnit, onDemand); + } + + @Override + public void run() { + Map<SimpleString, Binding> nameMap = addressManager.getBindings(); + + List<Queue> queues = new ArrayList<>(); + + for (Binding binding : nameMap.values()) { + if (binding.getType() == BindingType.LOCAL_QUEUE) { + Queue queue = (Queue) binding.getBindable(); + + queues.add(queue); + } + } + + for (Queue queue : queues) { + int consumerCount = queue.getConsumerCount(); + long messageCount = queue.getMessageCount(); + boolean autoCreated = queue.isAutoCreated(); + long consumerRemovedTimestamp = queue.getConsumerRemovedTimestamp(); + + if (!queue.isInternalQueue() && autoCreated && messageCount == 0 && consumerCount == 0 && consumerRemovedTimestamp != -1) { + SimpleString queueName = queue.getName(); + AddressSettings settings = addressSettingsRepository.getMatch(queue.getAddress().toString()); + if (settings.isAutoDeleteQueues() && (System.currentTimeMillis() - consumerRemovedTimestamp >= settings.getAutoDeleteQueuesDelay())) { + if (ActiveMQServerLogger.LOGGER.isDebugEnabled()) { + ActiveMQServerLogger.LOGGER.info("deleting auto-created queue \"" + queueName + ".\" consumerCount = " + consumerCount + "; messageCount = " + messageCount + "; isAutoDeleteQueues = " + settings.isAutoDeleteQueues()); + } + + try { + server.destroyQueue(queueName, null, true, false); --- End diff -- @michaelandrepearce is right, but I think it's worth mitigating the risk within the bounds of the current locking scheme. What I don't want to do is introduce additional locking or synchronization.
---