On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@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
