On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > This is all based on utterly-unproven assumptions about relative costs. > In particular, ISTM an additional network round trip or two associated > with testing for/creating a temp table could easily swamp any costs > associated with catalog entry creation. Even if it doesn't, > creating/deleting a few dozen rows in the system catalogs shouldn't > really be something that autovacuum can't deal with.
I don't see why it's limited to a few dozen rows. Moderately busy web sites these days count their traffic in hundreds of page views per second. > If it were, > we'd be hearing a lot more complaints about the *existing* temp table > feature being unusable. (And yes, I know it's come up once or twice, > but not all that often.) Well my point is that currently you have to type CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE somewhere which at least gives you a clue that maybe you're doing something significant. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
