On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > 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.
+1. I think it would be much better to nuke them more aggressively. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
