Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.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.

			regards, tom lane