Re: "could not open relation 1663/16384/16584: No such file or directory" in a specific combination of transactions with temp tables

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, John Smith <sodgodofall(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: "could not open relation 1663/16384/16584: No such file or directory" in a specific combination of transactions with temp tables
Date: 2008-03-03 12:13:56
Message-ID: 20080303121356.GA5271@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Heikki Linnakangas escribió:

> In the future, it would be nice to relax the restriction on using temp
> rels, though. A flag doesn't lend itself to that easily, but I'm sure
> we'll figure out something if we ever get around to implement that.

I can't recall the rationale for this limitation. Do we need anything
beyond flushing the table's buffers to disk? That sounds an easy thing
to implement.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2008-03-03 12:39:41 Re: "could not open relation 1663/16384/16584: No suchfile or directory" in a specific combination of transactions withtemp tables
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2008-03-03 10:50:57 Re: Read-ahead and parallelism in redo recovery