| From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [Patch] Temporary tables that do not bloat pg_catalog (a.k.a fast temp tables) |
| Date: | 2016-08-24 00:56:28 |
| Message-ID: | CAGTBQpaip3+5K420R0Hg5PdMwOs8hnpxGUQ_x37UFuEEkePYMg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Aleksander Alekseev
> <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>> Frankly I have much more faith in Tom's idea of using virtual part of the
>> catalog for all temporary tables, i.e turning all temporary tables into
>> "fast" temporary tables. Instead of introducing a new type of temporary tables
>> that solve catalog bloating problem and forcing users to rewrite applications
>> why not just not to create a problem in a first place?
>
> Would applications really need to be rewritten? Are they really
> constructing temporary tables where the definition of the table is
> dynamic, not just the content?
Mine is. But it wouldn't be a big deal to adapt.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-08-24 01:09:24 | Re: Patch: initdb: "'" for QUOTE_PATH (non-windows) |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-08-24 00:55:38 | Re: Patch: initdb: "'" for QUOTE_PATH (non-windows) |