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.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +