| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again) |
| Date: | 2008-07-12 16:48:41 |
| Message-ID: | 21208.1215881321@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Yeh, I read that and thought something similar. But we're talking about
> temp additions to catalog tables, not all temp tables. If we tried to
> implement spec-compliant temp tables we would need to write to catalog
> tables again, which is what we are trying to avoid!
No, because a spec-compliant temp table is a persistent object and
*should* be reflected in the permanent catalogs. What you meant to say
is that hot-standby sessions would only be able to use our traditional
type of temp tables.
[ thinks for a bit ... ] actually, maybe a hot standby session could be
allowed to use a *pre-existing* spec-compliant temp table. It couldn't
make a new one though.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-12 17:32:13 | Re: VACUUM Improvements - WIP Patch |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-07-12 16:47:07 | Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again) |