Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables
Date: 2003-04-16 03:05:43
Message-ID: 20030416030543.GB6483@dcc.uchile.cl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 10:09:38AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> The real problem with current temp tables is the implementation. I see
> very quick growth of system catalogs with heavy use of temp
> tables(some hundred mega bytes per week on a busy system for
> example). To fix the system catalogs, we have to stop postmaster and
> have to do reindex. This is truly a pain.

This is fixed in 7.4 already. It wasn't a problem with temp tables, but
with btree indexes.

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Endurecerse, pero jamas perder la ternura" (E. Guevara)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-04-16 03:17:59 Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables
Previous Message mlw 2003-04-16 02:08:32 Re: Foreign Database Connectivity