| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful |
| Date: | 2011-07-27 01:35:55 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobZuQo1tN0gN5Y+0cCRiNfr8eefvdy_vwmVu7HvfOe2tg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> It wouldn't, although it might be bad in the case where there are lots
>> of temp tables being created and dropped.
>
> Do temp tables cause relcache invalidations?
>
> That seems like something we'd want to change in itself.
I agree. Unfortunately, I think it's a non-trivial fix.
I've also been wondering if we could avoid taking an
AccessExclusiveLock on a newly created (temporary?) table. It seems
like no one should be able to see it until commit, at which point we'd
be releasing the lock anyway.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-27 01:57:10 | Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-27 01:32:54 | Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful |