| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: global temporary tables |
| Date: | 2010-04-25 21:29:47 |
| Message-ID: | 4BD4B44B.6030406@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert,
> (1). What I *think* it is supposed to mean is that the table is a
> permanent object which is "globally" visible - that is, it's part of
> some non-temp schema like public or $user and it's column definitions
> etc. are visible to all backends - and it's not automatically removed
> on commit, backend exit, etc. - but the *contents* of the table are
> temporary and backend-local, so that each new backend initially sees
> it as empty and can then insert, update, and delete data independently
> of what any other backend does.
While closer to the standard, the above definition is a lot less useful
than what I believe a lot of people want, which is a table which is
globally visible, but has no durability; that is, it does not get
WAL-logged or recovered on restart. Certainly this latter definition
would be far more useful to support materialized views.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-04-25 21:51:28 | Re: global temporary tables |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-25 19:13:06 | Re: inlining SQL functions |