> 2020年2月2日 上午2:00，Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> 写道： > > > > so 1. 2. 2020 v 14:39 odesílatel 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing....@alibaba-inc.com > <mailto:wenjing....@alibaba-inc.com>> napsal: > > >> 2020年1月30日 下午10:21，Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com >> <mailto:pavel.steh...@gmail.com>> 写道： >> >> >> >> čt 30. 1. 2020 v 15:17 odesílatel 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing....@alibaba-inc.com >> <mailto:wenjing....@alibaba-inc.com>> napsal: >> >> >> > 2020年1月29日 下午9:48，Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com >> > <mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com>> 写道： >> > >> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:12 PM 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing....@alibaba-inc.com >> > <mailto: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) >> { >> ... >> } > I tried to optimize code in global_temporary_table_v10-pg13.patch > > > Please give me feedback. > > I tested this patch and I have not any objections - from my user perspective > it is work as I expect > > +#define RELATION_IS_TEMP(relation) \ > + ((relation)->rd_islocaltemp || \ > + (relation)->rd_rel->relpersistence == RELPERSISTENCE_GLOBAL_TEMP) > > It looks little bit unbalanced > > maybe is better to inject rd_isglobaltemp to relation structure > > and then > > it should to like > > +#define RELATION_IS_TEMP(relation) \ > + ((relation)->rd_islocaltemp || \ > + (relation)->rd_isglobaltemp)) > > But I have not idea if it helps in complex In my opinion For local temp table we need (relation)->rd_rel->relpersistence == RELPERSISTENCE_TEMP and because one local temp table belongs to only one session, need to mark one sessions rd_islocaltemp = true ,and other to rd_islocaltemp = false.
But For GTT, just need (relation)->rd_rel->relpersistence == RELPERSISTENCE_GLOBAL_GLOBAL_TEMP One GTT can be used for every session, so no need rd_isglobaltemp anymore. This seems duplicated and redundant. > > > > > > > > Wenjing > > > >> >> >> >> Wenjing >> >> >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > Robert Haas >> > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com <http://www.enterprisedb.com/> >> > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >> >
