Re: PROPOSAL: Fast temporary tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Atri Sharma
Subject Re: PROPOSAL: Fast temporary tables
Date
Msg-id CAOeZVifFV0whSjAi5D9JeZCSg6O1UiFEkk7zpnhpD8YAJUd=8w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PROPOSAL: Fast temporary tables  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: PROPOSAL: Fast temporary tables  (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Aleksander Alekseev <a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru> writes:
>> There are applications that create and delete a lot of temporary
>> tables. Currently PostgreSQL doesn't handle such a use case well.


Yeah, I have a really hard time believing this can ever work.  There
are MANY catalog tables potentially involved here - pg_class,
pg_attribute, pg_attrdef, pg_description, pg_trigger, ... and loads
more - and they all can have OID references to each other.  If you
create a bunch of fake relcache and syscache entries, you're going to
need to give them OIDs, but where will those OIDs come from?  What
guarantees that they aren't in use, or won't be used later while your
temporary object still exists?  I think making this work would make
parallel query look like a minor feature.


Fair point, that means inventing a whole new OID generation structure..



--
Regards,
 
Atri
l'apprenant

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding
Next
From: Roma Sokolov
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix DROP OPERATOR to reset links to itself on commutator and negator