| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Creation of temporary tables on read-only standby servers |
| Date: | 2010-10-19 19:03:10 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikhaRH_NKKTEiShR2+GDPP+fZBUDa41KGqKHYfJ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout
<kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:52:01PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Well, temp tables really want a separate set of XIDs with a separate
>> CLOG, too. Admittedly, they don't necessarily need WAL, if you can
>> make them work without catalog entries, but that's not so easy either.
>
> At one point there was the idea to have a sort of permanent temporary
> tables which would have a pg_class entry but each session would have
> its own copy. Replicated slaves would then also be able to use this
> construction.
>
> Doesn't help with the XIDs though.
Hmm... yeah, I think I was the one who proposed that, actually. :-)
The trick is that it would require us to have two pg_class tables, two
pg_attribute tables, two pg_attrdef tables, etc.: in each case, one
permanent and one temporary. I am not sure how complex that will turn
out to be.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2010-10-19 19:07:34 | Re: Serializable snapshot isolation patch |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2010-10-19 19:01:03 | Re: Creation of temporary tables on read-only standby servers |