| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zhaomo Yang <zhy001(at)cs(dot)ucsd(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Implementation of global temporary tables? |
| Date: | 2015-07-15 15:41:14 |
| Message-ID: | 5523.1436974874@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 15 July 2015 at 16:28, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> I think that's generally a fair point. But here we're discussing to add
>> a fair amount of wrinkles with the copy approach. The fact alone that
>> the oid is different will have some ugly consequences.
> Why? We are creating a local temp table LIKE the global temp table. That is
> already a supported operation. So there is no "different oid".
You're presuming a specific implementation decision, one that has not been
made yet, and isn't all that attractive because of the catalog bloat issues.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Christensen | 2015-07-15 15:43:27 | Re: [DESIGN] Incremental checksums |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-07-15 15:39:47 | Re: Implementation of global temporary tables? |