On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout <klep...@svana.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:52:01PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> Well, temp tables really want a separate set of XIDs with a separate >> CLOG, too. Admittedly, they don't necessarily need WAL, if you can >> make them work without catalog entries, but that's not so easy either. > > At one point there was the idea to have a sort of permanent temporary > tables which would have a pg_class entry but each session would have > its own copy. Replicated slaves would then also be able to use this > construction. > > Doesn't help with the XIDs though.
Hmm... yeah, I think I was the one who proposed that, actually. :-) The trick is that it would require us to have two pg_class tables, two pg_attribute tables, two pg_attrdef tables, etc.: in each case, one permanent and one temporary. I am not sure how complex that will turn out to be. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
