Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

From: Adam Brusselback <adambrusselback(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Wenjing Zeng <wjzeng2012(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, wenjing <wenjing(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Bille <andrewbille(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tony Zhu <Tony(dot)zhu(at)ww-it(dot)cn>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables
Date: 2022-03-02 18:02:17
Message-ID: CAMjNa7eVkffUz7OWgC_i9y0o18xSER750Y8oFqR=mdOYWV9ZUQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>In my observation, very few users require an accurate query plan for
temporary tables to
perform manual analyze.

Absolutely not true in my observations or personal experience. It's one of
the main reasons I have needed to use (local) temporary tables rather than
just materializing a CTE when decomposing queries that are too complex for
Postgres to handle.

I wish I could use GTT to avoid the catalog bloat in those instances, but
that will only be possible if the query plans are accurate.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua Brindle 2022-03-02 18:02:18 Re: [PoC/RFC] Multiple passwords, interval expirations
Previous Message Chapman Flack 2022-03-02 17:54:08 Re: Add id's to various elements in protocol.sgml