Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

> The main attractions of this idea are avoiding the corrupt-index issue and
> not doing vacuuming work that's 99.99% sure to be useless.

It does seem strange to me to vacuum a table you're pretty sure is useless
*and* quite likely corrupt.

Could autovacuum emit log messages as soon as it sees such tables and start
dropping them at some point later?

--  Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services!