čt 30. 1. 2020 v 15:17 odesílatel 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing....@alibaba-inc.com>
napsal:
>
>
> > 2020年1月29日 下午9:48，Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:12 PM 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing....@alibaba-inc.com>
> wrote:
> >>> 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
> >
> > In view of commit 6919b7e3294702adc39effd16634b2715d04f012, I think
> > that this has approximately a 0% chance of being acceptable. If you're
> > setting a field in a way that is inconsistent with the current use of
> > the field, you're probably doing it wrong, because the field has an
> > existing purpose to which new code must conform. And if you're not
> > doing that, then you don't need to rename it.
> Thank you for pointing it out.
> I've rolled back the rename.
> But I still need rd_localtemp to be true, The reason is that
> 1 GTT The GTT needs to support DML in read-only transactions ,like local
> temp table.
> 2 GTT does not need to hold the lock before modifying the index buffer
> ,also like local temp table.
>
> Please give me feedback.
>
maybe some like
rel->rd_globaltemp = true;
and somewhere else
if (rel->rd_localtemp || rel->rd_globaltemp)
{
...
}
>
> Wenjing
>
>
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Robert Haas
> > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
>
