| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables |
| Date: | 2003-04-16 17:58:13 |
| Message-ID: | 200304161758.h3GHwDV29704@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> This is fixed in 7.4 already. It wasn't a problem with temp tables, but
> >> with btree indexes.
>
> > Yes, it is fixed partly, but I want to point out that the fix somewhat
> > asymetric.
>
> Have you actually run any experiments to prove that the current
> implementation has a problem?
I am asking more from a theoretical perspective --- can we say VACUUM
regularly or VACUUM FULL are the same in terms of index recovery, or at
least as similar as FULL/non-FULL are? I don't remember the btree index
compaction fix in CVS --- I just remember the recording of index free
space by VACUUM --- did I forget something?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Darko Prenosil | 2003-04-16 18:29:23 | Re: cross-db queries (was Are we losing momentum?) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-16 17:55:10 | Re: Redhat DB differences |