Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews@supernews.com> writes:
> On 2008-01-07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The real question that Josh's report brings up to me is why the heck was
>> there an orphaned temp table? Especially if it was only a toast table
>> and not the linked "regular" temp table? Something happened there that
>> should not have.
> The regular table was there too, but the regular table's relfrozenxid
> was apparently recent, only the toast table's was old:
Hmm, that's even more odd, since AFAICS vacuum will always vacuum a
toast table immediately after vacuuming the parent. I wonder whether
we have a bug somewhere that allows a toast table's relfrozenxid to
get initially set to something substantially different from the
parent's.
(BTW, if the parent table *was* there then Josh hardly needed any fancy
jujitsu to clear the problem -- "drop table pg_temp_24.tmp_isp_blk_chk"
as a superuser should've worked. I wouldn't try this if the originating
backend were still around, but if it's not then there's not going to be
anything all that special about the temp table.)
regards, tom lane