On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 01:26:20PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:55:15PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
Concerning everyone's favorite topic, how to name the new type of table, I
liked Tom's proposal[1] to
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 01:26:20PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I haven't ever heard anyone propose to redefine CREATE LOCAL TEMP
TABLE to mean anything different than CREATE TEMP TABLE, so I'm
disinclined to warn about that.
From a documentation
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:55:15PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
Concerning everyone's favorite topic, how to name the new type of table, I
liked Tom's proposal[1] to make CREATE TEMP TABLE retain current behavior and
have CREATE
On 8 June 2012 18:26, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I would be more open to warning people about CREATE GLOBAL TEMP TABLE
- frankly, it's pretty wonky that we allow that but treat GLOBAL as a
noise word in this first place. But I'm a little disinclined to have
the message
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 8 June 2012 18:26, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I would be more open to warning people about CREATE GLOBAL TEMP
TABLE - frankly, it's pretty wonky that we allow that but treat
GLOBAL as a noise word in this first place. But I'm a
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 09:04:28AM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
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
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
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Michael,
What is the use case for temporary tables on a hot standby server?
Perhaps this is a noobie question, but it seems to me that a hot standby
server's use by* applications* or *users* should be limited to
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
which seems to me to be actually harder than just rewriting as derived
table and isn't an option on Microstrategy etc, hence my observation
that GTTs don't help HS much. What I would like to see, one day, is
for temp
(on standby)
INSERT INTO s1 SELECT1;
SELECT ... FROM s1 WHERE ...
which seems to me to be actually harder than just rewriting as derived
table and isn't an option on Microstrategy etc, hence my observation
that GTTs don't help HS much. What I would like to see, one day, is
for temp tables
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 08:56:40AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
A full GTT implementation is not required and the design differed from
that. I don't think hideously complicated is accurate, that's just
you're way of saying and I disagree. Either route is pretty complex
and not much to choose
What is the use case for temporary tables on a hot standby server?
Perhaps this is a noobie question, but it seems to me that a hot standby
server's use by* applications* or *users* should be limited to transactions
that don't alter the database in any form.
However, I can see where temporary
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Michael Nolan htf...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the use case for temporary tables on a hot standby server?
Simple...
We required a hot standby server in order to get improved reliability.
But we don't want it to sit there chewing power + money, unused.
We want
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I think if implementing global temporary tables only for hot standby
user (#7), it might be of limited usefulness, but the ability to avoid
system table churn (#1) means global temporary tables would have a wide
usefulness,
Michael,
What is the use case for temporary tables on a hot standby server?
Perhaps this is a noobie question, but it seems to me that a hot standby
server's use by* applications* or *users* should be limited to transactions
that don't alter the database in any form.
A very common use for
On 4/25/12 6:16 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
The way standard-like temporary tables work is exactly why I assume
Noah proposes to implement them: because they work nicely with HS.
Well, following a standard that no other major DBMS has followed is
not great, especially if it leads to a non-useful
On 4/25/12 6:15 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Merlin Moncuremmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know how GTT play inside the Oracle stack such that they
aren't super popular, but if they work in the standby they will
quickly become a killer feature. IMNSHO
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:55:15PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
Concerning everyone's favorite topic, how to name the new type of table, I
liked Tom's proposal[1] to make CREATE TEMP TABLE retain current behavior and
have CREATE GLOBAL TEMP TABLE and/or CREATE LOCAL TEMP TABLE request the new
On 25.04.2012 18:49, Robert Haas wrote:
Maybe this is a silly idea, but if you're thinking about creating a
local XID space and a global XID space, it might be a good idea to
also make allowance for an unlogged XID space - that is, an XID
space that is global to all backends but need not survive
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
However, it is a fallacy that this is a good solution for using temp
tables on HS. I think the wish to enhance Oracle compatibility is
making some
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 5:57 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Based on the range of assessments spanning your almost useless to Merlin's
killer feature, I gather that its utility is exceptionally site-specific.
Robert Haas wrote:
Noah Misch wrote:
Based on the range of assessments spanning your almost useless
to Merlin's killer feature, I gather that its utility is
exceptionally site-specific.
Well said, sir.
+1
I find it a rather elegant and well-thought-out kludge.
Global temporary
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Previous discussions had Tom proposing ways of extending catalogs to
allow exactly this. So designs that address that point are already on
record.
Link?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
So, I can't help wonder if what we're really missing here is a
high-performance, log-based logical replication solution with good
core support.
On that, we do agree completely. That is exactly my goal for 9.3.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
I find it a rather elegant and well-thought-out kludge.
Global temporary tables as a feature are far more than a kludge; I
assume you're talking about that feature as a solution for the no
temporary tables on
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Implementing a feature that *requires* those things is madness and
obscuring those crucial points is not balanced or fair.
I think this whole discussion started the wrong way around. If the
goal of implementing GTTs is to
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Implementing a feature that *requires* those things is madness and
obscuring those crucial points is not balanced or fair.
I think this whole discussion
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Previous discussions had Tom proposing ways of extending catalogs to
allow exactly this. So designs that address that point are already on
record.
Link?
There was a thread a
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Previous discussions had Tom proposing ways of extending catalogs to
allow exactly this. So designs that
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
1. High catalog turnover in rapid create/drop workloads. Heavy temporary
table users often need to REINDEX relation-oriented catalogs. Hot standby
cannot assign OIDs or modify system catalogs at all.
4. sinval traffic
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
A third patch will permit the following commands in read-only transactions,
where they will throw an error if the subject is not a temporary table:
...
VACUUM (including VACUUM FULL)
CLUSTER (without USING clause)
REINDEX
2012/4/25 Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
I do not see a clean behind-the-scenes fix for points 1, 4 and 5. We can
resolve those by adding a new variety of temporary table, one coincidentally
matching the SQL standard's
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Nicolas Barbier
nicolas.barb...@gmail.com wrote:
The declarative creation of an “standard-like” temporary table only
happens once (it is part of the schema). Using (e.g. putting stuff in
and executing queries on) such tables can happen on the standby
without
2012/4/25 Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com:
So you are saying it is OK to not be able to *create* them on HS, just
*use* pre-defined tables?
That's almost useless IMHO.
Applications expect to be able to do this all in the same transaction
on one session
CREATE TEMP TABLE x;
...DML
2012/4/25 Nicolas Barbier nicolas.barb...@gmail.com:
is the reason of existence for the PG-like temporary transactions.
s/transactions/tables/
Nicolas
--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion.
Q. Why is top posting bad?
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Nicolas Barbier
nicolas.barb...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/4/25 Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com:
So you are saying it is OK to not be able to *create* them on HS, just
*use* pre-defined tables?
That's almost useless IMHO.
Applications expect to be able to do
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:55 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
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
How important is support for VACUUM on these tables under hot standby? The
alternative is to fail when a session retains a temporary table across 2B
local transactions. I do not currently see any challenges sufficient
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
How important is support for VACUUM on these tables under hot standby? The
alternative is to fail when a session retains a temporary table across
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
How important is support for VACUUM on these tables under hot standby?
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, we're talking about different things, and I'm slightly confused.
Yes, we need to support ANALYZE; what we might not need to support, at
least initially, is every user of a global temp table having their own
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, we're talking about different things, and I'm slightly confused.
Yes, we need to support ANALYZE; what we might not need to support, at
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, we are. Global Temp Tables won't solve the Works on HS problem,
so we'd better decide fairly quickly which use case we are addressing,
and why. ISTM Global Temp Tables is more an Oracle compatibility issue
than a
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
However, it is a fallacy that this is a good solution for using temp
tables on HS. I think the wish to enhance Oracle compatibility is
making some wishful thinking happen with regard to how useful this is
going to be. We
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, we're talking about different things, and I'm slightly confused.
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know how GTT play inside the Oracle stack such that they
aren't super popular, but if they work in the standby they will
quickly become a killer feature. IMNSHO it's annoying but acceptable
to be forced to
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:10:31AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
So you are saying it is OK to not be able to *create* them on HS, just
*use* pre-defined tables?
I estimated that much to cover a worthy portion of the need, yes.
That's almost useless IMHO.
Based on the range of assessments
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:49:23AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Our temporary tables are cataloged and filled like permanent tables. ?This
has
the major advantage of making most code operate on tables with minimal
regard
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Based on the range of assessments spanning your almost useless to Merlin's
killer feature, I gather that its utility is exceptionally site-specific.
Well said, sir.
It might be worth taking a couple of steps backward, here.
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Past discussions have raised the issue of interaction between commands like
ALTER TABLE and sessions using the new-variety temporary table. ?As a first
cut, let's keep this simple and have ongoing use of the table block
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
51 matches
Mail list logo
