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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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: 2010-10-18 19:55:10
Message-ID: 24723.1287431710@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>>> Hm. Wouldnt it be possible to use virtual xids for that purpose? They are
>>> never seen outside of that session anyway...
>>
>> Well, maybe, but then you need infrastructure to track whether VXIDs
>> committed or aborted.

> Seems like this would wreak havoc with the HeapTupleSatisfies* functions.

Yeah, it would be messy all over. This reminds me of last week's
discussion about mysql-style storage engines --- by the time you made
this work, you'd have something darn close to a separate storage engine
for temp tables. It'd need its own parallel infrastructure covering
everything to do with tuple visibility determination.

It'd be kinda cool if we had it, but the work required to get there
seems far out of proportion to the benefits ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2010-10-18 20:02:01 Re: create tablespace fails silently, or succeeds improperly
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-10-18 19:50:58 Re: create tablespace fails silently, or succeeds improperly