Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: Sander Steffann <steffann(at)nederland(dot)net>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?
Date: 2005-10-29 17:42:42
Message-ID: 11787.1130607762@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> You solve it by allowing other backends to lock and examine your
> temporary tables. But AIUI temporary tables are not stored in shared
> memory so how do you get a consistant view of it?

> Not unsolvable, but very tricky.

Right, the problem isn't that "it can't be done", it's that "it can't be
done without giving up most of the performance advantages of temp tables".
Which seems like a bad tradeoff, at least to me ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2005-10-29 18:28:43
Subject: The argument for reinstating --as-needed
Previous:From: Stefan KaltenbrunnerDate: 2005-10-29 17:41:44
Subject: Re: 8.1 Release Candidate 1 Coming ...

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2005-10-29 19:57:08
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] TODO Item - Add system view to show free
Previous:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2005-10-29 13:13:18
Subject: Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group