Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: idea: global temp tables

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: idea: global temp tables
Date: 2009-04-29 20:39:03
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> This is all based on utterly-unproven assumptions about relative costs.
> In particular, ISTM an additional network round trip or two associated
> with testing for/creating a temp table could easily swamp any costs
> associated with catalog entry creation.  Even if it doesn't,
> creating/deleting a few dozen rows in the system catalogs shouldn't
> really be something that autovacuum can't deal with.

I don't see why it's limited to a few dozen rows. Moderately busy web
sites these days count their traffic in hundreds of page views per

> If it were,
> we'd be hearing a lot more complaints about the *existing* temp table
> feature being unusable.  (And yes, I know it's come up once or twice,
> but not all that often.)

Well my point is that currently you have to type CREATE TEMPORARY
TABLE somewhere which at least gives you a clue that maybe you're
doing something significant.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2009-04-29 20:47:07
Subject: Re: idea: global temp tables
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2009-04-29 20:08:16
Subject: Re: idea: global temp tables

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group