| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>,Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>,Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>,PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Patch] Temporary tables that do not bloat pg_catalog (a.k.a fast temp tables) |
| Date: | 2016-08-24 16:39:37 |
| Message-ID: | C2404E95-2419-4F83-86C6-58A22C055230@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On August 24, 2016 9:32:48 AM PDT, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>On 08/24/2016 12:20 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2016-08-23 19:18:04 -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Tomas Vondra
>>> <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> Could someone please explain how the unlogged tables are supposed
>to fix the
>>>> catalog bloat problem, as stated in the initial patch submission?
>We'd still
>>>> need to insert/delete the catalog rows when creating/dropping the
>temporary
>>>> tables, causing the bloat. Or is there something I'm missing?
>>
>> Beats me.
>>
>
>Are you puzzled just like me, or are you puzzled why I'm puzzled?
Like you. I don't think this addresses the problem to a significant enough degree to care.
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Anastasia Lubennikova | 2016-08-24 16:41:46 | Re: Optimization for lazy_scan_heap |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-08-24 16:32:48 | Re: [Patch] Temporary tables that do not bloat pg_catalog (a.k.a fast temp tables) |