On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 12:48:32PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > The least invasive solution would be to have a guc, something like > > 'keep_orphan_temp_tables' with boolean value. > > Which would determine a autovacuum worker policy toward encountered orphan > > temp tables. > > The stated reason for keeping them around is to ensure you have time to > do some forensics research in case there was something useful in the > crashing backend. My feeling is that if the reason they are kept around > is not a crash but rather some implementation defect that broke end-time > cleanup, then they don't have their purported value and I would rather > just remove them. > > I have certainly faced my fair share of customers with dangling temp > tables, and would like to see this changed in some way or another.
I don't think we look at those temp tables frequently enough to justify keeping them around for all users. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
