On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 10:49:29AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 10:24 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > So if we think we can invent a "MAGICALLY FIX MY DATABASE" command, > > let's do that. But please let's not turn a well defined command > > like VACUUM into something that you don't quite know what it will do. > > I am on the fence about that. I see your point, but on the other > hand, autovacuum drops temp tables all the time in multi-user mode and > I think it's pretty clear that, with the possible exception of you, > users find that an improvement. So it could be argued that we're > merely proposing to make the single-user mode behavior of vacuum > consistent with the behavior people are already expecting it to do.
It is possible for a session to drop temporary tables of other sessions. Wouldn't it work as well in this case for single-user mode when seeing an orphan temp table still defined? Like Tom, I don't think that it is a good idea to play with the heuristics of VACUUM in the way the patch proposes. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
