| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zhaomo Yang <zhy001(at)cs(dot)ucsd(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Implementation of global temporary tables? |
| Date: | 2015-07-15 15:44:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20150715154404.GL5520@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-07-15 16:36:12 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 15 July 2015 at 16:28, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > I think that's generally a fair point. But here we're discussing to add
> > a fair amount of wrinkles with the copy approach. The fact alone that
> > the oid is different will have some ugly consequences.
> >
>
> Why? We are creating a local temp table LIKE the global temp table. That is
> already a supported operation. So there is no "different oid".
Then your locking against ALTER, DROP etc. isn't going to work.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2015-07-15 15:52:58 | Re: Implementation of global temporary tables? |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-07-15 15:44:03 | Re: LWLock deadlock and gdb advice |