Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

> 2020年1月24日 上午4:47，Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> 写道：
>
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 8:51 PM Tomas Vondra
> <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I proposed just ignoring those new indexes because it seems much simpler
>> than alternative solutions that I can think of, and it's not like those
>> other solutions don't have other issues.
>
> +1.
I complete the implementation of this feature.
When a session x create an index idx_a on GTT A then
For session x, idx_a is valid when after create index.
For session y, before session x create index done, GTT A has some data, then index_a is invalid.
For session z, before session x create index done, GTT A has no data, then index_a is valid.

>
>> For example, I've looked at the "on demand" building as implemented in
>> global_private_temp-8.patch, I kinda doubt adding a bunch of index build
>> calls into various places in index code seems somewht suspicious.
>
> +1. I can't imagine that's a safe or sane thing to do.
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Opinion by Pavel
+ rel->rd_islocaltemp = true; <<<<<<< if this is valid, then the name of field "rd_islocaltemp" is not probably best
I renamed rd_islocaltemp

Opinion by Konstantin Knizhnik
1 Fixed comments
2 Fixed assertion

Please help me review.

Wenjing