Darcy Buskermolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > After a fresh start of postgres, there should be no temp tables, so would a > work around to this at least be at postmaster start to (for a lack of a > better pseudo code ) DROP SCHEMA pg_temp* CASCADE; before coming up in > interactive mode?
The argument against this is the same as not wiping out apparently-unreferenced regular tables: automatically destroying the evidence after a crash is someday going to bite you. Admittedly, this argument is a bit weaker for temp tables than it is for regular tables, but that only goes to the question of whether the data is valuable on its own terms, not whether it might be valuable for crash analysis. 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. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate