On Mon, 30 Sept 2024 at 18:05, Tom Lane
wrote:
> Yes. Our implementation restrictions preclude access to the contents
> of another session's temp tables, but it is not forbidden to do DDL
> on them so long as no content access is required. (Without this,
> it'd be problematic for example to clean
> Yes. Our implementation restrictions preclude access to the contents
> of another session's temp tables, but it is not forbidden to do DDL
> on them so long as no content access is required. (Without this,
> it'd be problematic for example to clean out a crashed session's temp
> tables. See the "
On Mon, 30 Sept 2024 at 18:05, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yes. Our implementation restrictions preclude access to the contents
> of another session's temp tables, but it is not forbidden to do DDL
> on them so long as no content access is required. (Without this,
> it'd be problematic for example to cle
Maxim Orlov writes:
> But for the second one: do we really need any lock for temp relations?
Yes. Our implementation restrictions preclude access to the contents
of another session's temp tables, but it is not forbidden to do DDL
on them so long as no content access is required. (Without this,
Hi!
Working with temp relations is some kind of bottleneck in Postgres, in my
view.
There are no problems if you want to handle it from time to time, not
arguing
that. But if you have to make a massive temp tables creation/deletion,
you'll
soon step into a performance degradation.
To the best of
