| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remaining beta blockers |
| Date: | 2013-05-04 02:04:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HPHwbyuHwrj3E4sYzh4yQPz6bjdC=iJRTQyqSbWS78EQg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Yes, I think the big question is how much information do we want per
> relation that we don't need in the system tables.
It's not that we don't need it in the system tables. It's that there's
some state that we *can't* have in the system tables because we need
it to be accessible without access to the catalog or we need to be
able to change it on a standby.
But note that this all sounds very similar to the global temp table
discussion a while ago. I think we're gong to need some infrastructure
for table state that isn't transactional and it will make sense to
solve that with something general that we can then depend on for lots
of things. If I had to guess it would look more like a cached copy of
the pg_class row or the whole relcache entry rather than an entirely
independent structure.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-05-04 02:19:42 | Re: Remaining beta blockers |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-05-04 01:19:40 | Re: matview niceties: pick any two of these three |