On August 31, 2016 3:00:15 PM PDT, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > >On 08/31/2016 11:43 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2016-08-31 23:40:46 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: >>> It's an improvement (and it's pretty much exactly what I proposed >>> upthread). But it does not solve the problems with pg_statistic for >>> example (each backend needs it's own statistics. So we'd either >bloat >>> the pg_statistic (if we manage to solve the problem that the table >has >>> the same oid in all backends), or we would need in-memory tuples >(just >>> like discussed in the thread so far). >> >> Creating a session private version of pg_statistic would be fairly >> simple. > >Sure. I'm just saying it's not as simple as overriding relpath. > >ISTM we only need the pg_statistics (as other catalogs are connected to >the pg_class entry), which does not have the dependency issues. Or do >we >need other catalogs?
In my experience pg attribute is usually the worst affected. Many tech takes won't even have stays entries... Andres -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
