Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations

> > So, we only have to use shared buffer pool for local (but probably
> > not for temporary) relations to close this issue, yes? I personally
> > don't see any performance issues if we do this.
> 
> Hmm.  Temporary relations are a whole different story.
> 
> It would be nice if updates on temp relations never got WAL-logged at
> all, but I'm not sure how feasible that is.  Right now we don't really

There is no any point to log them.

> distinguish temp relations from ordinary ones --- in particular, they
> have pg_class entries, which surely will get WAL-logged even if we
> persuade the buffer manager not to do it for the data pages.  Is that
> a problem?  Not sure.

It was not about any problem. I just mean that local buffer pool
still could be used for temporary relations if someone thinks
that it has any sence, anyone?

Vadim