> I do not think this is something we ought to consider. It might help > certain corner use-cases, but it's probably a net loss for most. > In particular, I don't think that creating thousands of temp tables in > a session but then touching only a few of them in any one transaction > is a very plausible usage pattern.
Acturely, we just facing such problem in some real systems. More than 3,700 temporary tables created! I accept such case is not that common, but it does exist.
It is unfair to add a performance penalty to everyone just because some people write bad code. I concur that adding complexity to the system to gracefully handle this corner-case doesn't seem justified. A use case description, not mere existence, is needed to provide such justification.
