Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> thimoty@thimoty.it wrote:
>> i don't know if there is a quicker way, but i ended up in having
>> 40,000 or so
>> stale temp tables from a Java application which is using postgres as
>> backend.
> Lost temp tables should never happen, but they sometimes do because of
> backend crashes.
I was wondering how he got to that state, too. If it was because of
crashes, he must have had an awful lot of crashes.
> I have worked on a patch to auto-delete them, but it
> was rejected and we can't come up with a good way to do it. I think
> this is fixed in 7.3.
7.3 is better anyway: a backend crash can still leave temp tables
behind, but they'll be cleaned up the next time some backend tries
to use the same pg_temp_NNN schema.
regards, tom lane
