On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> How important is support for VACUUM on these tables under hot standby? The >> alternative is to fail when a session retains a temporary table across 2B >> local transactions. I do not currently see any challenges sufficient to >> motivate not supporting VACUUM, but it might be a useful simplification to >> keep in mind. What about ANALYZE support; how important is the ability to >> collect statistics on temporary tables? Again, I tentatively expect to >> support it regardless of the answer. > > I think it's probably pretty important to support VACUUM, because even > ignoring wraparound considerations, not vacuuming tends to cause > performance to suck. I think ANALYZE is less important for the > reasons stated above. ANALYZE is essential for temp tables in many cases... not sure what the "reasons stated above" were, I can't resolve that reference. I've never seen VACUUM used on a temp table. Perhaps we need it for edge cases, but either way ISTM to be low priority. If people find temp tables restrictive they can just use unlogged tables instead. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers