| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: global temporary tables |
| Date: | 2010-04-26 20:18:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20100426201847.GF3963@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane escribió:
> [ forgot to respond to this part ]
>
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > ... I don't see the problem with DROP.
> > Under the proposed design, it's approximately equivalent to dropping a
> > table that someone else has truncated. You just wait for the
> > necessary lock and then do it.
>
> And do *what*? You can remove the catalog entries, but how are you
> going to make the physical storage of other backends' versions go away?
> (To say nothing of making them flush their local buffers for it.)
Maybe we could add a sinval message to that effect.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-04-26 20:24:02 | Re: Discarding the resulting rows |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2010-04-26 20:16:01 | Re: Discarding the resulting rows |