Re: Creation of temporary tables on read-only standby servers

From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Creation of temporary tables on read-only standby servers
Date: 2010-10-19 19:01:03
Message-ID: 20101019190103.GA12214@svana.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:52:01PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Well, temp tables really want a separate set of XIDs with a separate
> CLOG, too. Admittedly, they don't necessarily need WAL, if you can
> make them work without catalog entries, but that's not so easy either.

At one point there was the idea to have a sort of permanent temporary
tables which would have a pg_class entry but each session would have
its own copy. Replicated slaves would then also be able to use this
construction.

Doesn't help with the XIDs though.

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism,
> when hate for people other than your own comes first.
> - Charles de Gaulle

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-10-19 19:03:10 Re: Creation of temporary tables on read-only standby servers
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-10-19 19:00:24 Re: max_wal_senders must die