Jim Nasby wrote:
> On Mar 14, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> Since your original email is fairly unclear about what you think the
> >>> problem is, it's a bit hard to speculate here, but like Simon, I don't
> >>> see any obv
On Mar 14, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Since your original email is fairly unclear about what you think the
>>> problem is, it's a bit hard to speculate here, but like Simon, I don't
>>> see any obvious problem here. Maybe you
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Since your original email is fairly unclear about what you think the
>> problem is, it's a bit hard to speculate here, but like Simon, I don't
>> see any obvious problem here. Maybe you're asking not so much about
>> inserts, updates, or d
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 20:44 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> > Looking at the code, it seems we create shared invalidation messages for
> >> > temporary table activity? ?Is this true? ?Should we
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 20:44 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > Looking at the code, it seems we create shared invalidation messages for
>> > temporary table activity? Is this true? Should we be avoiding it?
>> >
>> > I t
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 20:44 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Looking at the code, it seems we create shared invalidation messages for
> > temporary table activity? Is this true? Should we be avoiding it?
> >
> > I tested this by reviewing the code and checking calls to
> > Ca
On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 20:44 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Looking at the code, it seems we create shared invalidation messages for
> temporary table activity? Is this true? Should we be avoiding it?
>
> I tested this by reviewing the code and checking calls to
> CacheInvalidateHeapTuple(), which
Looking at the code, it seems we create shared invalidation messages for
temporary table activity? Is this true? Should we be avoiding it?
I tested this by reviewing the code and checking calls to
CacheInvalidateHeapTuple(), which happens for temporary table
creation/destruction.
--
Bruce Mo
