On Mar 14, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >>> Since your original email is fairly unclear about what you think the >>> problem is, it's a bit hard to speculate here, but like Simon, I don't >>> see any obvious problem here. Maybe you're asking not so much about >>> inserts, updates, or deletes into temporary tables but about creating >>> and making modifications to them, which will generate catcache and >>> relcache flushes when the pg_class/pg_attribute entries are updated. >>> But I don't think those invalidation messages can be optimized away, >>> since other backends can access temporary tables of other sessions in >>> limited ways - for example, they can drop them. >> >> Sorry, yes that was my point --- should we be doing as much cache >> invalidation traffic for temporary tables as we are doing? I think you >> are saying we are fine and there are no optimizations possible. > > Yeah, I think so. I mean, if you have a concrete example of this > causing a problem, then we can look into it, but my intuition is that > it's OK. Programmers intuition are notoriously wrong, of course, so > we're all just shooting in the dark until we have something to > measure.
Sounds like there should be a comment somewhere in the code that explains why we actually need those messages... -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect j...@nasby.net 512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
