út 28. 1. 2020 v 18:12 odesílatel 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing....@alibaba-inc.com> napsal:
> > > 2020年1月29日 上午12:40，Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> 写道： > > > > út 28. 1. 2020 v 17:01 odesílatel 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing....@alibaba-inc.com> > napsal: > >> >> >> 2020年1月24日 上午4:47，Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> 写道： >> >> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 8:51 PM Tomas Vondra >> <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> >> I proposed just ignoring those new indexes because it seems much simpler >> than alternative solutions that I can think of, and it's not like those >> other solutions don't have other issues. >> >> >> +1. >> >> I complete the implementation of this feature. >> When a session x create an index idx_a on GTT A then >> For session x, idx_a is valid when after create index. >> For session y, before session x create index done, GTT A has some data, >> then index_a is invalid. >> For session z, before session x create index done, GTT A has no data, >> then index_a is valid. >> >> >> For example, I've looked at the "on demand" building as implemented in >> global_private_temp-8.patch, I kinda doubt adding a bunch of index build >> calls into various places in index code seems somewht suspicious. >> >> >> +1. I can't imagine that's a safe or sane thing to do. >> >> -- >> Robert Haas >> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com >> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >> >> >> Opinion by Pavel >> + rel->rd_islocaltemp = true; <<<<<<< if this is valid, then the name of >> field "rd_islocaltemp" is not probably best >> I renamed rd_islocaltemp >> > > I don't see any change? > > Rename rd_islocaltemp to rd_istemp > in global_temporary_table_v8-pg13.patch > ok :) Pavel > > > Wenjing > > > > > > >> Opinion by Konstantin Knizhnik >> 1 Fixed comments >> 2 Fixed assertion >> >> >> Please help me review. >> >> >> Wenjing >> >> >
