Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

From: Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing(dot)zwj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, 蔡松露(子嘉) <zijia(at)taobao(dot)com>, "Cai, Le" <le(dot)cai(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, 萧少聪(铁庵) <shaocong(dot)xsc(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables
Date: 2020-01-29 17:21:20
Message-ID: 2e7fc7af-34f7-f707-5100-2c3d24128aee@postgrespro.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 29.01.2020 20:08, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
>
> 2. Actually I do not propose some completely new approach. I try to
> provide behavior with is compatible with regular tables.
> If you create index for regular table, then it can be used in all
> sessions, right?
>
>
> I don't understand to this point. Regular tables shares data, shares
> files. You cannot to separate it. More - you have to uses relatively
> aggressive locks to be this operation safe.
>
> Nothing from these points are valid for GTT.

GTT shares metadata.
As far as them are not sharing data, then GTT are safer than regular
table, aren't them?
"Safer" means that we need less "aggressive" locks for them: we need to
protect only metadata, not data itself.

My point is that if we allow other sessions to access created indexes
for regular tables, then it will be not more complex to support it for GTT.
Actually "not more complex" in this case means "no extra efforts are
needed".

--
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2020-01-29 17:37:01 Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2020-01-29 17:08:35 Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables