problems with TEMP table (6.5.3)

From: Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: problems with TEMP table (6.5.3)
Date: 2000-02-24 18:35:32
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.3.96.SK.1000224210952.22930i-100000@ra
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I have a problem with 6.5.3 and TEMP table inside transaction.

test=> begin;
BEGIN
test=> create temp table tempid (id int, level int);
CREATE
test=> \q

Postgres process doesn't stopped. The same happens if I
use rollback before ending transaction.

test=> \d
Couldn't find any tables, sequences or indices!
test=> begin;
BEGIN
test=> create temp table tempid (id int, level int);
CREATE
test=> insert into tempid ( id, level ) values (1 ,1);
INSERT 332330 1
test=> rollback;
ABORT
test=> end;
NOTICE: EndTransactionBlock and not inprogress/abort state
END
test=> \q

zen:~/app/pgsql$ psql test
Welcome to the POSTGRESQL interactive sql monitor:
Please read the file COPYRIGHT for copyright terms of POSTGRESQL
[PostgreSQL 6.5.3 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc egcs-2.91.66]

type \? for help on slash commands
type \q to quit
type \g or terminate with semicolon to execute query
You are currently connected to the database: test

test=> vacuum;
NOTICE: AbortTransaction and not in in-progress state
ERROR: cannot write block 0 of pg_temp.8928.0 [test] blind
test=>

I checked 7.0 from cvs and it looks better.

Also, I see a lot of opened files when doing
select/inserts into temp table inside transaction
(temp table was created before transaction). So,
if I do a lot of selects/inserts I easily reach file description limit.

Do I miss here ?

Regards,

Oleg

_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyle 2000-02-24 18:50:21 postgresql performance, smp vs non-smp
Previous Message Keith G. Murphy 2000-02-24 18:16:04 Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] TRANSACTIONS