| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: temp_buffers |
| Date: | 2005-07-08 03:21:42 |
| Message-ID: | 7317.1120792902@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 04:16:58PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Can someone give me a reasonable explanation of what temp_buffers is for?
> Number of buffers to be used for temp tables. Think shared_buffers, but
> local to a connection instead of shared.
> They are also used for new relations, in the transaction they are being
> created. Because no one else can see the relation, there's no point in
> sharing their pages.
No, temp buffers are *only* used for temp tables. Several versions back
the code acted as you say, but we got rid of that because it was more of
a headache than it was worth.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-08 03:31:46 | Re: Hmmm 8.1 pg_dumpall cannot dump older db's? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-08 03:18:51 | Re: Must be owner to truncate? |