Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Yeh, I read that and thought something similar. But we're talking about
> temp additions to catalog tables, not all temp tables. If we tried to
> implement spec-compliant temp tables we would need to write to catalog
> tables again, which is what we are trying to avoid!

No, because a spec-compliant temp table is a persistent object and
*should* be reflected in the permanent catalogs.  What you meant to say
is that hot-standby sessions would only be able to use our traditional
type of temp tables.

[ thinks for a bit ... ] actually, maybe a hot standby session could be
allowed to use a *pre-existing* spec-compliant temp table.  It couldn't
make a new one though.
        regards, tom lane