Re: PROPOSAL: Fast temporary tables
| От | Atri Sharma |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: PROPOSAL: Fast temporary tables |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAOeZVifP9w9ADEuGiTbaib9djrY2K9s8z0dNTcLyNgWpjrjMaw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: PROPOSAL: Fast temporary tables (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
I think you have no concept how invasive that would be. Tables not
represented in the catalogs would be a disaster, because *every single
part of the backend* would have to be modified to deal with them as
a distinct code path --- parser, planner, executor, loads and loads
of utility commands, etc. I do not think we'd accept that. Worse yet,
you'd also break client-side code that expects to see temp tables in
the catalogs (consider psql \d, for example).
I might be missing a point here, but I really do not see why we would need an alternate code path for every part of the backend. I agree that all utility commands, and client side code would break, but if we abstract out the syscache API and/or modify only the syscache's underlying access paths, then would the backend really care about whether the tuple comes from physical catalogs or in memory catalogs?
Regards,
Atri
l'apprenant
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: