Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables
Date: 2003-04-16 17:58:13
Message-ID: 200304161758.h3GHwDV29704@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> This is fixed in 7.4 already. It wasn't a problem with temp tables, but
> >> with btree indexes.
>
> > Yes, it is fixed partly, but I want to point out that the fix somewhat
> > asymetric.
>
> Have you actually run any experiments to prove that the current
> implementation has a problem?

I am asking more from a theoretical perspective --- can we say VACUUM
regularly or VACUUM FULL are the same in terms of index recovery, or at
least as similar as FULL/non-FULL are? I don't remember the btree index
compaction fix in CVS --- I just remember the recording of index free
space by VACUUM --- did I forget something?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Darko Prenosil 2003-04-16 18:29:23 Re: cross-db queries (was Are we losing momentum?)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-04-16 17:55:10 Re: Redhat DB differences