Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful
Date: 2011-07-26 19:25:04
Message-ID: CA+U5nMKQH4os5SJZ3DcnNVgS-nREt_Gb0+TfCfbMLruH_0Smpw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)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.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-07-26 19:25:05 Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-07-26 19:11:31 Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful