Re: Implementation of global temporary tables?
| От | Simon Riggs |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Implementation of global temporary tables? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CANP8+jJF4vF_pVcBzSUAHtvUy7E+5eQ1xd-t0YnNH3n_aD7FEg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Implementation of global temporary tables? (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Implementation of global temporary tables?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 15 July 2015 at 16:44, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
There would be two objects, both locked. The temp table is just nice and simple. No problem.
--
On 2015-07-15 16:36:12 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 15 July 2015 at 16:28, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > I think that's generally a fair point. But here we're discussing to add
> > a fair amount of wrinkles with the copy approach. The fact alone that
> > the oid is different will have some ugly consequences.
> >
>
> Why? We are creating a local temp table LIKE the global temp table. That is
> already a supported operation. So there is no "different oid".
Then your locking against ALTER, DROP etc. isn't going to work.
There would be two objects, both locked. The temp table is just nice and simple. No problem.
Your optimization may work; I hope it does. My approach definitely will. So we could choose either.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: