Re: unlogged tables

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: unlogged tables
Date: 2010-12-18 17:27:24
Message-ID: 4D0C9A9D020000250003876A@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas wrote:

> If there's any third-party code out there that is checking
> rd_istemp, it likely also needs to be revised to check whether
> WAL-logging is needed, not whether the relation is temp. The way
> I've coded it, such code will fail to compile, and can be very
> easily fixed by substituting a call to RelationNeedsWAL() or
> RelationUsesLocalBuffers() or RelationUsesTempNamespace(),
> depending on which property the caller actually cares about.

Hmm... This broke the SSI patch, which was using rd_istemp to omit
conflict checking where it was set to true. The property I care
about is whether tuples in one backend can be read by an transaction
in a different backend, which I assumed would not be true for
temporary tables. Which of the above would be appropriate for that
use?

-Kevin

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2010-12-18 17:41:04 Re: Extensions, patch v19 (encoding brainfart fix)
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2010-12-18 16:59:36 Re: proposal : cross-column stats