Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

> 2020年1月29日 上午12:40，Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> 写道：
>
>
>
> út 28. 1. 2020 v 17:01 odesílatel 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing(dot)zwj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com <mailto:wenjing(dot)zwj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>> napsal:
>
>
>> 2020年1月24日 上午4:47，Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>> 写道：
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 8:51 PM Tomas Vondra
>> <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com <mailto:tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>> wrote:
>>> I proposed just ignoring those new indexes because it seems much simpler
>>> than alternative solutions that I can think of, and it's not like those
>>> other solutions don't have other issues.
>>
>> +1.
> I complete the implementation of this feature.
> When a session x create an index idx_a on GTT A then
> For session x, idx_a is valid when after create index.
> For session y, before session x create index done, GTT A has some data, then index_a is invalid.
> For session z, before session x create index done, GTT A has no data, then index_a is valid.
>
>>
>>> For example, I've looked at the "on demand" building as implemented in
>>> global_private_temp-8.patch, I kinda doubt adding a bunch of index build
>>> calls into various places in index code seems somewht suspicious.
>>
>> +1. I can't imagine that's a safe or sane thing to do.
>>
>> --
>> Robert Haas
>> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com <http://www.enterprisedb.com/>
>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
> Opinion by Pavel
> + rel->rd_islocaltemp = true; <<<<<<< if this is valid, then the name of field "rd_islocaltemp" is not probably best
> I renamed rd_islocaltemp
>
> I don't see any change?
Rename rd_islocaltemp to rd_istemp in global_temporary_table_v8-pg13.patch

Wenjing

>
>
>
> Opinion by Konstantin Knizhnik
> 1 Fixed comments
> 2 Fixed assertion
>
>
> Please help me review.
>
>
> Wenjing
>