Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: global temporary tables

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: global temporary tables
Date: 2010-04-26 20:02:53
Message-ID: q2v603c8f071004261302waf6a2eaeyf7956586a0d4e443@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 11:35 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> And I don't
>> think you can even get that far, because I don't think too many people
>> here are going to say that we shouldn't add global temporary tables
>> unless we can also make them work with Hot Standby.
>
> The policy round here for some time has been that when we implement
> things we make them work fully and seamlessly. I don't see why Hot
> Standby would be singled out any more than any other feature, say
> Windows support or tablespaces should be occasionally ignored.
>
> People need to get used to the new feature set, just as we had to with
> HOT, subtransactions, prepared transactions, Gist etc.. That may require
> a thwack from various people, but the responsibility lies with the new
> feature implementor, not the person supporting existing code.
>
> I fully understand your wish to implement a partial feature with caveats
> because I have argued that many times myself. But I've come to realise
> that the best way is to build things so they work cleanly across the
> board. Other developers can plan projects in the knowledge that they can
> build directly on firm foundations, not fill in the cracks. In the end
> this comes down to a choice as developers, do we help each other by
> doing a full job, or do we leave unexploded bombs for each other through
> short-termism? Now I understand this better myself, I act differently
> and accept objections if people think a fuller, more complete design is
> what is needed. Recent demonstrations of that available, both objecting
> and accepting.
>
> Don't see this as an extra task, just see it as one of the many aspects
> that will need to be considered when developing it. If you do that it
> need not be additional work.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way.  If temporary tables
have to work with Hot Standby in order for it to be committable, then
we should never have committed Hot Standby in the first place because
our current flavor of temporary tables doesn't.  Was that an oversight
on your part, or a recognition that you can't solve every problem in
one commit?

...Robert

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-04-26 20:03:52
Subject: Re: Discarding the resulting rows
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-04-26 19:50:53
Subject: Re: global temporary tables

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group