Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> wrote: > Creating new catalog entries for [temp tables] gives up -- what I > think is the whole point of their design -- their lack of DDL > overhead. As long as we're brainstorming... Would it make any sense for temp tables to be created as in-memory tuplestores up to the point that we hit the temp_buffers threshold? Creating and deleting a whole set of disk files per temp table is part of what makes them so heavy. (There's still the issue of dealing with the catalogs, of course....) -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
