From: | Nicolas Barbier <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Temporary tables under hot standby |
Date: | 2012-04-25 10:08:23 |
Message-ID: | CAP-rdTbCr2TAaKgeDVvWGoEMAUqapR9_DHXNnC9Qhir9aZ_ERg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2012/4/25 Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> So you are saying it is OK to not be able to *create* them on HS, just
> *use* pre-defined tables?
>
> That's almost useless IMHO.
>
> Applications expect to be able to do this all in the same transaction
> on one session
> CREATE TEMP TABLE x;
> ...DML commands...
> SELECT ... FROM x;
That’s not how standard-like temporary tables work, they are supposed
to be declared beforehand. That makes sense if you consider the schema
and the set of database-using applications as one. I assume that
wanting to define applications independently from the database schema
is the reason of existence for the PG-like temporary transactions.
The way standard-like temporary tables work is exactly why I assume
Noah proposes to implement them: because they work nicely with HS.
Nicolas
--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion.
Q. Why is top posting bad?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nicolas Barbier | 2012-04-25 10:10:56 | Re: Temporary tables under hot standby |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-04-25 10:03:18 | Re: [v9.3] Extra Daemons (Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database) |