Re: PROPOSAL: Fast temporary tables

>
>
>
> I think you have no concept how invasive that would be. Tables not
> represented in the catalogs would be a disaster, because *every single
> part of the backend* would have to be modified to deal with them as
> a distinct code path --- parser, planner, executor, loads and loads
> of utility commands, etc. I do not think we'd accept that. Worse yet,
> you'd also break client-side code that expects to see temp tables in
> the catalogs (consider psql \d, for example).
>
>
I might be missing a point here, but I really do not see why we would need
an alternate code path for every part of the backend. I agree that all
utility commands, and client side code would break, but if we abstract out
the syscache API and/or modify only the syscache's underlying access paths,
then would the backend really care about whether the tuple comes from
physical catalogs or in memory catalogs?

--
Regards,

Atri
*l'apprenant*