Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables
Date: 2003-04-16 15:41:50
Message-ID: 18501.1050507710@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> The real problem with current temp tables is the implementation. I see
> very quick growth of system catalogs with heavy use of temp
> tables(some hundred mega bytes per week on a busy system for
> example). To fix the system catalogs, we have to stop postmaster and
> have to do reindex. This is truly a pain.

I believe the btree compaction logic in CVS tip will fix this.
It would be nice to see in-the-field proof though. Don't suppose you
want to run a test system with CVS tip?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sean Chittenden 2003-04-16 15:45:17 Re: Are we losing momentum?
Previous Message Rob Butler 2003-04-16 15:33:25 Many comments (related to "Are we losing momentum?")