Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> This is fixed in 7.4 already.  It wasn't a problem with temp tables, but
> >> with btree indexes.
> 
> > Yes, it is fixed partly, but I want to point out that the fix somewhat
> > asymetric.
> 
> Have you actually run any experiments to prove that the current
> implementation has a problem?

I am asking more from a theoretical perspective --- can we say VACUUM
regularly or VACUUM FULL are the same in terms of index recovery, or at
least as similar as FULL/non-FULL are?  I don't remember the btree index
compaction fix in CVS --- I just remember the recording of index free
space by VACUUM --- did I forget something?

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073