Markus Bertheau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It's already true that the individual buffers, as opposed to the buffer
>> descriptors, are allocated only as needed; which makes the overhead
>> of a large local_buffers setting pretty small if you don't actually do
>> much with temp tables in a given
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 12:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> That means we can go ahead with providing a GUC variable to make the
> array size user-selectable. I was thinking of calling it either
> "local_buffers" (in contrast to "shared_buffers") or "temp_buffers"
> (to emphasize the fact that they're us
Markus Bertheau wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> ? ???, 19/03/2005 ? 12:57 -0500, Tom Lane ?:
>
> > It's already true that the individual buffers, as opposed to the buffer
> > descriptors, are allocated only as needed; which makes the overhead
> > of a large local_buffers setting prett
Ð ÐÐÑ, 19/03/2005 Ð 12:57 -0500, Tom Lane ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> It's already true that the individual buffers, as opposed to the buffer
> descriptors, are allocated only as needed; which makes the overhead
> of a large local_buffers setting pretty small if you don't actually do
> much with temp tables in a giv
Tom Lane wrote:
That means we can go ahead with providing a GUC variable to make the
array size user-selectable. I was thinking of calling it either
"local_buffers" (in contrast to "shared_buffers") or "temp_buffers"
(to emphasize the fact that they're used for temporary tables).
Anyone have a pre
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
That means we can go ahead with providing a GUC variable to make the
array size user-selectable. I was thinking of calling it either
"local_buffers" (in contrast to "shared_buffers") or "temp_buffers" (to
emphasize the fact that they're used for temporary ta
