| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Cc: | pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables |
| Date: | 2003-04-17 01:21:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20030417.102124.71088282.t-ishii@sra.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > The real problem with current temp tables is the implementation. I see
> > very quick growth of system catalogs with heavy use of temp
> > tables(some hundred mega bytes per week on a busy system for
> > example). To fix the system catalogs, we have to stop postmaster and
> > have to do reindex. This is truly a pain.
>
> I believe the btree compaction logic in CVS tip will fix this.
> It would be nice to see in-the-field proof though. Don't suppose you
> want to run a test system with CVS tip?
No problem with the testing. Let me report later.
BTW, do you have any document for the btree compaction logic you have
implemented? I see your proposal in the mailing list, but not sure
about your actual implementaion...
--
Tatsuo Ishii
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Brown | 2003-04-17 01:42:36 | Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2003-04-17 01:20:48 | Re: encoding question |