On 15 July 2015 at 16:44, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2015-07-15 16:36:12 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On 15 July 2015 at 16:28, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > I think that's generally a fair point. But here we're discussing to add > > > a fair amount of wrinkles with the copy approach. The fact alone that > > > the oid is different will have some ugly consequences. > > > > > > > Why? We are creating a local temp table LIKE the global temp table. That > is > > already a supported operation. So there is no "different oid". > > Then your locking against ALTER, DROP etc. isn't going to work. >
There would be two objects, both locked. The temp table is just nice and simple. No problem. Your optimization may work; I hope it does. My approach definitely will. So we could choose either. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
