Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com> writes:
> On 10/21/15 3:28 PM, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
>> Transactions and table-locking issues are probably why temporary indexes don't exist.
> I think it's more that no one has proposed it until now. It probably
> wouldn't be terribly hard to add them... the biggest issue would
> probably be changing the buffer management code so it didn't assume that
> a temporary relation went into temporary buffers.
Uh, why would you do that? You'd be throwing away one of the principal
performance advantages of temp tables.
regards, tom lane
