X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C79789FA5FB for ; Thu, 11 May 2006 19:08:49 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 93589-07 for ; Thu, 11 May 2006 19:08:45 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09FB99F9F2E for ; Thu, 11 May 2006 19:08:44 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4BM8axf004336; Thu, 11 May 2006 18:08:36 -0400 (EDT) To: "Jim C. Nasby" cc: Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD , PFC , Greg Stark , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal In-reply-to: <20060511210141.GP99570@pervasive.com> References: <20060511210141.GP99570@pervasive.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Jim C. Nasby" message dated "Thu, 11 May 2006 16:01:41 -0500" Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 18:08:36 -0400 Message-ID: <4335.1147385316@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200605/305 X-Sequence-Number: 19092 "Jim C. Nasby" writes: > I'd hope that wasn't what's happening... is the backend smart enough to > know not to fsync anything involved with the temp table? The catalog entries required for it have to be fsync'd, unless you enjoy putting your entire database at risk (a bad block in pg_class, say, would probably take out more than one table). It's interesting to speculate about keeping such catalog entries in child tables of pg_class etc that are themselves temp tables. Resolving the apparent circularity of this is left as an exercise for the reader. regards, tom lane