On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> 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.
+1 from here as well. Making the deletion of orphaned temp tables even in the non-wraparound autovacuum case mandatory looks to be the better move to me. I can see that it could be important to be able to look at some of temp tables' data after a crash, but the argument looks weak compared to the potential bloat of catalog tables because of those dangling temp relations. And I'd suspect that there are far more users who would like to see this removal more aggressive than users caring about having a look at those orphaned tables after a crash. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers