On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> This is all based on utterly-unproven assumptions about relative costs.
> In particular, ISTM an additional network round trip or two associated
> with testing for/creating a temp table could easily swamp any costs
> associated with catalog entry creation. Even if it doesn't,
> creating/deleting a few dozen rows in the system catalogs shouldn't
> really be something that autovacuum can't deal with.
I don't see why it's limited to a few dozen rows. Moderately busy web
sites these days count their traffic in hundreds of page views per
second.
> If it were,
> we'd be hearing a lot more complaints about the *existing* temp table
> feature being unusable. (And yes, I know it's come up once or twice,
> but not all that often.)
Well my point is that currently you have to type CREATE TEMPORARY
TABLE somewhere which at least gives you a clue that maybe you're
doing something significant.
--
greg