Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

Tom Lane writes:

> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> 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.
>
>> I don't think this requires much of a rearrangement -- see
>> autovacuum.c
>> 1921ff.
>
> So everyone is happy with the concept of doing it as above? If so,
> I'll work on it this weekend sometime.

I think it is the most reasonable thing to do. Regarding the log
messages about orphaned tables, it would be nice if you could add a
hint/detail message explaining how to cleanup those tables. If that's
possible.

Best Regards
Michael Paesold