On 06/03/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Anton Melser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for your reply. I am managing a db that has some export scripts
> that don't do a drop/create, but rather a delete from at the start of
> the proc (6 or 7 tables used for this, and only this). Now
"Anton Melser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for your reply. I am managing a db that has some export scripts
> that don't do a drop/create, but rather a delete from at the start of
> the proc (6 or 7 tables used for this, and only this). Now given that
> there is no vacuuming at all going on
On 06/03/07, Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 03 March 2007 10:33, Anton Melser wrote:
> Hi,
> I have been going around telling everyone that there is no point using
> physical tables in postgres for temporary storage within a procedure.
> Why bother bothering the system with s
On Saturday 03 March 2007 10:33, Anton Melser wrote:
> Hi,
> I have been going around telling everyone that there is no point using
> physical tables in postgres for temporary storage within a procedure.
> Why bother bothering the system with something which is only used in
> one procedure I said t
Hi,
I have been going around telling everyone that there is no point using
physical tables in postgres for temporary storage within a procedure.
Why bother bothering the system with something which is only used in
one procedure I said to myself... I have just learnt that with MS Sql
Server, this i
