Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables

> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> writes:
> > The real problem with current temp tables is the implementation. I see
> > very quick growth of system catalogs with heavy use of temp
> > tables(some hundred mega bytes per week on a busy system for
> > example). To fix the system catalogs, we have to stop postmaster and
> > have to do reindex. This is truly a pain.
> 
> I believe the btree compaction logic in CVS tip will fix this.
> It would be nice to see in-the-field proof though.  Don't suppose you
> want to run a test system with CVS tip?

No problem with the testing. Let me report later.

BTW, do you have any document for the btree compaction logic you have
implemented? I see your proposal in the mailing list, but not sure
about your actual implementaion...
--
Tatsuo Ishii