| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: temp tables |
| Date: | 2008-03-14 00:01:45 |
| Message-ID: | 27663.1205452905@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com> writes:
> Do CREATE TEMP TABLE table have any special treatment regarding eliding
> sync operations
Yes; neither fsync nor WAL-writing is done for temp tables.
> or deferring creation of disk files in the case where memory pressure
> does not require a spill?
No. The trouble with doing something like that is we might be forced to
report an out-of-disk-space failure at some quite unintuitive point,
like during a SELECT.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2008-03-14 05:53:41 | Re: Recomendations on raid controllers raid 1+0 |
| Previous Message | Leigh Dyer | 2008-03-13 23:14:46 | Re: Recomendations on raid controllers raid 1+0 |