From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: global temporary tables |
Date: | 2010-04-26 19:40:27 |
Message-ID: | 12163.1272310827@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 11:35 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> And I don't
>> think you can even get that far, because I don't think too many people
>> here are going to say that we shouldn't add global temporary tables
>> unless we can also make them work with Hot Standby.
> The policy round here for some time has been that when we implement
> things we make them work fully and seamlessly. I don't see why Hot
> Standby would be singled out any more than any other feature, say
> Windows support or tablespaces should be occasionally ignored.
The current definition of Hot Standby is that it's a *read only*
behavior. Not read mostly. What you are proposing is a rather
fundamental change in the behavior of HS, and it doesn't seem to me
that it should be on the head of anybody else to make it work.
IOW: I agree with Robert that this is not an essential part of global
temp tables. If it happens to fall out that it works like that, great,
but it isn't a requirement.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2010-04-26 19:49:16 | Re: Discarding the resulting rows |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-04-26 19:36:02 | Re: Discarding the resulting rows |