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

From Atri Sharma
Subject Re: PROPOSAL: Fast temporary tables
Date
Msg-id CAOeZVifP9w9ADEuGiTbaib9djrY2K9s8z0dNTcLyNgWpjrjMaw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PROPOSAL: Fast temporary tables  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List 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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Fast temporary tables
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Fast temporary tables