Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

> 2020年1月30日 下午10:21，Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> 写道：
>
>
>
> čt 30. 1. 2020 v 15:17 odesílatel 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing(dot)zwj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com <mailto:wenjing(dot)zwj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>> napsal:
>
>
> > 2020年1月29日 下午9:48，Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>> 写道：
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:12 PM 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing(dot)zwj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com <mailto:wenjing(dot)zwj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>> wrote:
> >>> Opinion by Pavel
> >>> + rel->rd_islocaltemp = true; <<<<<<< if this is valid, then the name of field "rd_islocaltemp" is not probably best
> >>> I renamed rd_islocaltemp
> >>
> >> I don't see any change?
> >>
> >> Rename rd_islocaltemp to rd_istemp in global_temporary_table_v8-pg13.patch
> >
> > In view of commit 6919b7e3294702adc39effd16634b2715d04f012, I think
> > that this has approximately a 0% chance of being acceptable. If you're
> > setting a field in a way that is inconsistent with the current use of
> > the field, you're probably doing it wrong, because the field has an
> > existing purpose to which new code must conform. And if you're not
> > doing that, then you don't need to rename it.
> Thank you for pointing it out.
> I've rolled back the rename.
> But I still need rd_localtemp to be true, The reason is that
> 1 GTT The GTT needs to support DML in read-only transactions ,like local temp table.
> 2 GTT does not need to hold the lock before modifying the index buffer ,also like local temp table.
>
> Please give me feedback.
>
> maybe some like
>
> rel->rd_globaltemp = true;
>
> and somewhere else
>
> if (rel->rd_localtemp || rel->rd_globaltemp)
> {
> ...
> }
I tried to optimize code in global_temporary_table_v10-pg13.patch

Please give me feedback.

Wenjing

>
>
>
> Wenjing
>
>
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Robert Haas
> > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com <http://www.enterprisedb.com/>
> > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>