From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
 Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>,
        Aleksander Alekseev <a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru>,
        Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
        David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Subject: Re: [Patch] Temporary tables that do not bloat pg_catalog (a.k.a fast
 temp tables)
In-reply-to: <20160815005755.gswdyjfob7dzw4yp@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <1184.1469890030@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <5cdc3fde-d6a5-f0d2-b930-485bdcaecde5@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20160801124531.66cde374@fujitsu>
 <26c3bc60-6613-e7ab-517a-53136f01fb6c@2ndquadrant.com>
 <13191.1470072250@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20160804151451.6fb87507@fujitsu>
 <CA+Tgmob+AS4vPA-wp+KevL7q+qK4c7yZ5wjGvEv6EqPChE2oYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+q6zcVLO7VoHHpRn9ExkiWksF6TwJ-rabqgwRJgC2_ci8_UEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoYstEXxa0KCAPVAVseTwBpb51t=bK1FBU8L8h4sC3XWBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <14212.1470595566@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20160815005755.gswdyjfob7dzw4yp@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Sun, 14 Aug 2016 17:57:55 -0700"
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:04:57 -0400
Message-ID: <20319.1471223097@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2016-08-07 14:46:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I think the whole idea of a fast temporary table is that there are no
>>> catalog entries.  If there are no catalog entries, then dependencies
>>> are not visible.  If there ARE catalog entries, to what do they refer?
>>> Without a pg_class entry for the table, there's no table OID upon
>>> which to depend.

>> TBH, I think that the chances of such a design getting committed are
>> not distinguishable from zero.  Tables have to have OIDs; there is just
>> too much code that assumes that.  And I seriously doubt that it will
>> work (for any large value of "work") without catalog entries.

> That seems a bit too defeatist.

Huh?  I didn't say we shouldn't work on the problem --- I just think that
this particular approach isn't good.  Which you seemed to agree with.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers