Re: what is difference between LOCAL and GLOBAL TEMP TABLES in PostgreSQL

From: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Jim Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: what is difference between LOCAL and GLOBAL TEMP TABLES in PostgreSQL
Date: 2007-07-02 18:17:49
Message-ID: 162867790707021117p6b65eeb8ha985ec35eed6a237@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I

2007/7/2, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> > I've often thought that having global temp tables would be a really
> > good idea, since it would drastically reduce the need to vacuum
> > catalog tables,
>
> I rather doubt that. The most likely implementation would involve
> cloning a "template" entry into pg_class.
>

I am working on prototype, and cloning of template entry is propably
one possible solution. Every session's clon needs own statistic and
then needs own table oid.

Nice a day
Pavel Stehule

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-07-02 18:24:18 SOLVED: unexpected EIDRM on Linux
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2007-07-02 18:04:49 Re: SetBufferCommitInfoNeedsSave and race conditions