Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I think it's pointless to speculate about whether we might have divvied
>> up the meta-information about tables differently if we'd foreseen
>> wanting to do this. It is what it is, and there is *way* too much code
>> depending on it, both inside the backend and in clients. Any
>> reimplementation of temp tables will still have to expose largely the
>> same catalog information that exists for tables now. We can probably
>> get away with marginal changes like redefining relfilenode, but we can't
>> avoid providing catalog entries that describe the schema and statistics
>> of a temp table.
> I agree about the schema -- that's the whole point of the catalog tables.
> I felt like the statistics were pretty marginal to begin with.
I'm thinking more of pg_statistic than the stuff in pg_class --- I agree
that we could probably kluge some other approach for relpages and
reltuples, but that doesn't scale to the real statistics.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
