Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobZuQo1tN0gN5Y+0cCRiNfr8eefvdy_vwmVu7HvfOe2tg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It wouldn't, although it might be bad in the case where there are lots
>> of temp tables being created and dropped.
>
> Do temp tables cause relcache invalidations?
>
> That seems like something we'd want to change in itself.

I agree.  Unfortunately, I think it's a non-trivial fix.

I've also been wondering if we could avoid taking an
AccessExclusiveLock on a newly created (temporary?) table.  It seems
like no one should be able to see it until commit, at which point we'd
be releasing the lock anyway.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful