Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Can we actually get rid of pg_class entries for temp tables.  Maybe
creating a "temp pg_class" which would be local to each session?  Heck,
it doesn't even have to be an actual table -- it just needs to be
somewhere from where we can load entries into the relcache.

A few things to think about:

1. You'll break a whole lotta client-side code if temp tables disappear
from pg_class.

2. How do you keep the OIDs for temp tables (and their associated
rowtypes) from conflicting with OIDs for real tables?

3. What about dependencies on user-defined types, functions, etc?

Is there not some gain from just a "standard" partitioning of pg_class into: (system-objects, user-objects, temp-objects)? I'd expect them to form a hierarchy of change+vacuum rates (if you see what I mean).

  Richard Huxton
  Archonet Ltd

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to