On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Could someone please explain how the unlogged tables are supposed to fix the > catalog bloat problem, as stated in the initial patch submission? We'd still > need to insert/delete the catalog rows when creating/dropping the temporary > tables, causing the bloat. Or is there something I'm missing?
No, not really. Jim just asked if the idea of partitioning the columns was completely dead in the water, and I said, no, you could theoretically salvage it. Whether that does you much good is another question. IMV, the point here is that you MUST have globally visible dependency entries for this to work sanely. If they're not in a catalog, they have to be someplace else, and backend-private memory isn't good enough, because that's not globally visible. Until we've got a strategy for that problem, this whole effort is going nowhere - even though in other respects it may be a terrific idea. -- 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
