Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: Sander Steffann <steffann(at)nederland(dot)net>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?
Date: 2005-10-29 17:42:42
Message-ID: 11787.1130607762@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> You solve it by allowing other backends to lock and examine your
> temporary tables. But AIUI temporary tables are not stored in shared
> memory so how do you get a consistant view of it?

> Not unsolvable, but very tricky.

Right, the problem isn't that "it can't be done", it's that "it can't be
done without giving up most of the performance advantages of temp tables".
Which seems like a bad tradeoff, at least to me ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2005-10-29 18:28:43 The argument for reinstating --as-needed
Previous Message Stefan Kaltenbrunner 2005-10-29 17:41:44 Re: 8.1 Release Candidate 1 Coming ...

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2005-10-29 19:57:08 Re: [PATCHES] TODO Item - Add system view to show free
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2005-10-29 13:13:18 Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?