Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Or we could have autovacuum just drop orphaned temp tables, *if*
>> they have gotten old enough to need anti-wraparound vacuuming.
>> While I'm still uncomfortable with having autovac drop anything,
>> at least this would avoid the worst cases of "gee I really needed
>> that data to investigate the crash". The main attractions of this
>> idea are avoiding the corrupt-index issue and not doing vacuuming
>> work that's 99.99% sure to be useless.
>
> That sounds a lot simpler and better to me.
Yeah, when I read the original this one struck me as almost a no-brainer
choice.
cheers
andrew
