Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

Tom Lane wrote:
> We might have to rearrange the logic a bit to make that happen (I'm not
> sure what order things get tested in), but a log message does seem like
> a good idea.  I'd go for logging anytime an orphaned table is seen,
> and dropping once it's past the anti-wraparound horizon.

Is there an easy way for an Admin clean-up the lost temp tables that 
autovacuum is complaining about?  It seems like it could be along time 
and a lot of log messages between when they are first orphaned and and 
finally dropped due to anti-wraparound protection.