Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 10/21/15 3:28 PM, Jonathan Vanasco wrote: >> Transactions and table-locking issues are probably why temporary indexes don't exist. > I think it's more that no one has proposed it until now. It probably > wouldn't be terribly hard to add them... the biggest issue would > probably be changing the buffer management code so it didn't assume that > a temporary relation went into temporary buffers. Uh, why would you do that? You'd be throwing away one of the principal performance advantages of temp tables. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
