From: | 章晨曦 <zhangchenxi(at)halodbtech(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David G(dot) Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Performance issue on temporary relations |
Date: | 2025-08-19 16:18:34 |
Message-ID: | tencent_3725032F1E6BCE0F154C1F0E@qq.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> It is unfair to add a performance penalty to everyone just because some
>> people write bad code. I concur that adding complexity to the system to
>> gracefully handle this corner-case doesn't seem justified. A use case
>> description, not mere existence, is needed to provide such justification.
> Yeah, the real sub-text here is "should we believe that this
> application is well designed?". It sounds like a fairly brute-force
> solution.
I agree the application is not well designed for PostgreSQL because it was migrated
from Oracle, and may not do such optimization. But back to this issue, even though
we only create 10 temporary relations, it will cause 10 truncates on every transaction.
Is that a good design?
Regards,
Jet
Halo Tech (www.halodbtech.com)
openHalo (www.openhalo.org)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2025-08-19 16:21:41 | Re: Changing the state of data checksums in a running cluster |
Previous Message | Yura Sokolov | 2025-08-19 16:16:39 | Re: VM corruption on standby |