| From: | Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniil Davydov <3danissimo(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Forbid to DROP temp tables of other sessions |
| Date: | 2024-11-25 07:44:55 |
| Message-ID: | CACG=ezZx60QHeLP0xkkoe4wugg8MVkC_qGzZ50tEU2YzORyqJA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 at 21:13, Andrey M. Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>
wrote:
> What if we say it's not a bug, but a feature. Will it break some contracts
> with user or some functionality?
An important thing to note here. We have to trade off an opportunity to
significantly improve temp tables performance by removing locks for a "not
a bug, but a feature". This seems odd to me. Arguably, the number of people
who need faster temp relations is greater than the number of people who
want to have access to temp relations of other backends.
--
Best regards,
Maxim Orlov.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2024-11-25 08:29:05 | Re: DOCS - pg_replication_slot . Fix the 'inactive_since' description |
| Previous Message | Dmitry Nikitin | 2024-11-25 07:32:27 | [PATCH] Missing Assert in the code |