"John Lister" <john.lister-ps@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> Was this expected behaviour with temporary tables? >> It's more expected behavior when you have long running transactions. >> I haven't seen it caused by temp tables. Was the parent process in a >> really long transaction or just open a long time without one? > The first thing I checked was for open transactions, but alas there were > none. I suspect the process had been open a long time without creating any > transactions, but don't know which process it was at this point, the > connection was owned by my colleague so need to check with him or look for > dead applications... It's possible for temp tables to remain behind after a backend crash. Not clear if that's your situation or not, but it does happen. Such tables will get cleaned out whenever the owning pg_temp_nnn schema is next used to hold temp tables --- but if it's a high-numbered schema that might not happen for a long time. Also, in 8.4 and up, autovacuum will forcibly drop orphaned temp tables once they get old enough to start creating xid-wraparound issues. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
