From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Nolan <htfoot(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Temporary tables under hot standby |
Date: | 2012-05-02 15:53:58 |
Message-ID: | CAFNqd5UMv5WLq_n4Ru_UgDBn0gpX3c4KVURJ1UtaE0JftJpD6g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Michael Nolan <htfoot(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> What is the use case for temporary tables on a hot standby server?
Simple...
We required a "hot standby" server in order to get improved reliability.
But we don't want it to sit there chewing power + money, unused.
We want to *use* it to support our reporting applications.
And the developers used temporary tables to marshal results used in
some of those reports.
There are conflicting senses of "read-only" here...
- In one strict sense, to generate tuples in temp tables means it's
not "read only" access.
- But since the users running reports aren't allowed to modify the
data in the application tables that they are querying, how is that
*not* fairly characterized as "read only" access???
--
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-02 16:06:43 | Re: clog double-dip in heap_hot_search_buffer |
Previous Message | Michael Nolan | 2012-05-02 15:39:21 | Re: Temporary tables under hot standby |