Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> No. Just removing a warning isn't the way to solve this. If you want to
>> improve things you'll actually need to improve things not just stick
>> your head into the sand.
> I've studied this area of the code before, and I would actually
> proposed to fix this in the opposite way - namely, adopt the logic
> currently used for the wraparound case, which drops the temp table,
> even if wraparound is not an issue. The current code seems to be
> laboring under the impression that there's some benefit to keeping the
> temporary relation around, which, as far as I can see, there isn't.
FWIW, I agree with Andres on this. The right response is to drop the temp
table not complain about log spam. Or even more to the point, investigate
why it's there in the first place; perhaps there's an actual fixable bug
somewhere in there. But deciding that orphaned temp tables are normal
is *not* an improvement IMO.
regards, tom lane
