"Jaime Casanova" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6/4/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Perhaps a reasonable compromise could work like this: at the first point
>> in a transaction where a temp file is created, choose a random list
>> element, and thereafter advance cyclically for the dura
On 6/4/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps a reasonable compromise could work like this: at the first point
in a transaction where a temp file is created, choose a random list
element, and thereafter advance cyclically for the duration of that
transaction. This ensures within-transac
--On Montag, Juni 04, 2007 15:34:14 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Perhaps a reasonable compromise could work like this: at the first point
in a transaction where a temp file is created, choose a random list
element, and thereafter advance cyclically for the duration of that
transact
--On Montag, Juni 04, 2007 15:34:14 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The reason I'm thinking per-transaction is that we could tie this to
setting up a cached list of tablespace OIDs, which would avoid the
overhead of repeat parsing and tablespace validity checking. We had
rejected usi
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 14:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> The original ideal implementation was to use round-robin/cyclic
>>> selection, which allows much better usage in the above case.
>>
>> Really? What if mu
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 14:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > One of the main reasons for the implementation was to allow larger
> > queries to work faster by utilising multiple temp tablespaces for the
> > same query.
>
> > The original ideal implementation wa
