On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 06:08:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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). Yeah, thought about that after sending... :( > 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. Well, since it'd be a system table with a fixed OID there could presumably be a special case in the recovery code for it, though that's pretty fugly sounding. Another alternative would be to support global temp tables... I think that would handle all the complaints of the OP except for the cost of analyze. I suspect this would be easier to do than creating a special type of temp table that used tuplestore instead of the full table framework, and it'd certainly be more general-purpose. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
