| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl |
| Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, 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 04:00:39 |
| Message-ID: | 20030416.130039.102769709.t-ishii@sra.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 10:09:38AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > 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.
>
> This is fixed in 7.4 already. It wasn't a problem with temp tables, but
> with btree indexes.
I thought Tom has not finished his work yet, no?
--
Tatsuo Ishii
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-16 04:20:06 | Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2003-04-16 03:30:02 | Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables |