Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
>> Any chance that some of these improvements could be applied to temp
>> tables created with the PostgreSQL-specific syntax while we're at
>> it?
>
> You mean the Postgres-specific behavior, no?
>
> Trying to support a table without *any* pre-existing catalog entries
> seems even harder than doing it without changing the pre-existing
> catalog entries.
I can't say that I followed all of Greg's ideas, but it seemed that
some of them related to cheaper ways to materialize the body of the
temp table, as opposed to updating the system tables. That seemed
like it might be orthogonal to the issue of persistent temp table
definitions, and perhaps the ideas could help performance of all temp
tables, including the PostgreSQL-specific variety. Being out of my
depth on the technical issues he was discussing, I can't really do
more than pose the question, however....
-Kevin
