On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > A key barrier to migrations from trigger-based replication to WAL-based > replication is the lack of temporary tables under hot standby. I'd like to > close that gap; the changes needed will also reduce the master-side cost of > temporary table usage. Here is a high-level design for your advice and > comments. Much of this builds on ideas from past postings noted below.
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Michael Nolan <htf...@gmail.com> wrote: > To cross-pollinate with another thread, if temporary tables (and > insert/delete/update transactions to them) are to be supported on a slave, > will the applications using those temporary tables expect to be able to use > 'nextval' on inserts to temporary tables as well? That's a very good question. I'm moving it -hackers...how do non table temporary objects work? Do you have CREATE GLOBAL TEMPORARY SEQUENCE? etc. My understanding of the current proposal is that the sequence (along with the rest of the table) has to be defined in the master as a global temporary table. It seems that it wouldn't be possible or desirable to serialize sequence fetches between the master and standby servers, but I'm not sure about that. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
