Re: PROPOSAL: Fast temporary tables

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Fast temporary tables
Date: 2016-03-01 19:17:26
Message-ID: 56D5EAC6.5010001@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3/1/16 10:05 AM, Atri Sharma wrote:
> Fair point, that means inventing a whole new OID generation structure..

Generation is just the tip of the iceberg. You still need the equivalent
to foreign keys (ie: pg_depend). While you would never have a permanent
object depend on a temp object, the reverse certainly needs to be supported.

If I were attempting to solve this at a SQL level, I'd be thinking about
using table inheritance such that the permanent objects are stored in a
permanent parent. New backends would create UNLOGGED children off of
that parent. There would be a pid column that was always NULL in the
parent, but populated in children. That means children could use their
own local form of an OID. When a backend terminates you'd just truncate
all it's tables.

Actually translating that into relcache and everything else would be a
serious amount of work.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Konstantin Knizhnik 2016-03-01 19:23:40 Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2016-03-01 19:16:15 Re: Commitfest Bug (was: Re: Reusing abbreviated keys during second pass of ordered [set] aggregates)