From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: removal of dangling temp tables
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+TgmoYdgL7pRBAkucZoZriVExJvS+TqGZ7yZNF0roi7FiHwLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20181214162843.37g6h3txto43akrb@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CA+TgmoYdgL7pRBAkucZoZriVExJvS+TqGZ7yZNF0roi7FiHwLA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 14 Dec 2018 11:48:45 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <8544.1544810243.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:57:23 -0500
Message-ID: <8545.1544810243@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:29 AM Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> I think the best way to fix this is to call RemoveTempRelations()
>> unconditionally at session start (without doing the rest of the temp
>> table setup, just the removal.)

> That would certainly simplify things.  I think I thought about that as
> far back as a734fd5d1c309cc553b7c8c79fba96218af090f7 but it seemed
> like a significant behavior change and I wasn't sure that everyone
> would like it.  In particular, it adds overhead to backend startup
> that, in the case of a large temp schema, could be fairly long.

> Nevertheless, I tentatively think that a change like this is a good
> idea.  I wouldn't back-patch it, though.

I seem to recall discussions about having crash recovery go around
and clean out temp tables.  That seems like a better plan than
penalizing every session start with this.

			regards, tom lane