Re: shared temp tables

> I love the fact that temp tables do not exist in every PostgreSQL session,
> don't get me wrong.
>
> The issue is this: most "web environments" have the idea of a session. A
> session management scheme based on PostgreSQL exposes PostgreSQL's worst
> behavior. Small amount of records, high update/delete rate for each record. So
> much so, that it probably isn't realistic to replace something like Oracle with
> PostgreSQL in this environment.
>
> Do "temp tables" suffer the same delete/update behavior of marking the row as
> deleted and adding another row? Thus requiring vacuum periodically.
>
> If not, should/could there be a way to create a temp table that is globally
> visible?

Temp table are the same as real tables have have the same update
behavior.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026