Hi so 11. 1. 2020 v 15:00 odesílatel 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing....@alibaba-inc.com> napsal:
> Hi all > > This is the latest patch > > The updates are as follows: > 1. Support global temp Inherit table global temp partition table > 2. Support serial column in GTT > 3. Provide views pg_gtt_relstats pg_gtt_stats for GTT’s statistics > 4. Provide view pg_gtt_attached_pids to manage GTT > 5. Provide function pg_list_gtt_relfrozenxids() to manage GTT > 6. Alter GTT or rename GTT is allowed under some conditions > > > Please give me feedback. > I tested the functionality 1. i think so "ON COMMIT PRESERVE ROWS" should be default mode (like local temp tables). I tested some simple scripts test01.sql CREATE TEMP TABLE foo(a int, b int); INSERT INTO foo SELECT random()*100, random()*1000 FROM generate_series(1,1000); ANALYZE foo; SELECT sum(a), sum(b) FROM foo; DROP TABLE foo; -- simulate disconnect after 100 sec, the table pg_attribute has 3.2MB and 64 tps, 6446 transaction test02.sql INSERT INTO foo SELECT random()*100, random()*1000 FROM generate_series(1,1000); ANALYZE foo; SELECT sum(a), sum(b) FROM foo; DELETE FROM foo; -- simulate disconnect after 100 sec, 1688 tps, 168830 transactions So performance is absolutely different as we expected. >From my perspective, this functionality is great. Todo: pg_table_size function doesn't work Regards Pavel > Wenjing > > > > > > 2020年1月6日 上午4:06，Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> 写道： > > Hi, > > I think we need to do something with having two patches aiming to add > global temporary tables: > > [1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/26/2349/ > > [2] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/26/2233/ > > As a reviewer I have no idea which of the threads to look at - certainly > not without reading both threads, which I doubt anyone will really do. > The reviews and discussions are somewhat intermixed between those two > threads, which makes it even more confusing. > > I think we should agree on a minimal patch combining the necessary/good > bits from the various patches, and terminate one of the threads (i.e. > mark it as rejected or RWF). And we need to do that now, otherwise > there's about 0% chance of getting this into v13. > > In general, I agree with the sentiment Rober expressed in [1] - the > patch needs to be as small as possible, not adding "nice to have" > features (like support for parallel queries - I very much doubt just > using shared instead of local buffers is enough to make it work.) > > regards > > -- > Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services > > >
