Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful
| От | Robert Haas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+TgmobZuQo1tN0gN5Y+0cCRiNfr8eefvdy_vwmVu7HvfOe2tg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> It wouldn't, although it might be bad in the case where there are lots >> of temp tables being created and dropped. > > Do temp tables cause relcache invalidations? > > That seems like something we'd want to change in itself. I agree. Unfortunately, I think it's a non-trivial fix. I've also been wondering if we could avoid taking an AccessExclusiveLock on a newly created (temporary?) table. It seems like no one should be able to see it until commit, at which point we'd be releasing the lock anyway. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: