Horton

Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

曾文旌 (义从) <wenjing.zwj@alibaba-inc.com>

View thread
From: 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing.zwj@alibaba-inc.com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
Cc: "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, 蔡松露(子嘉) <zijia@taobao.com>, Cai, Le <le.cai@alibaba-inc.com>, 萧少聪(铁庵) <shaocong.xsc@alibaba-inc.com>
Date: 2020-01-11T14:00:44Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. PageAddItemExtended(): Add LP_UNUSED assertion.

  2. Remove temporary files after backend crash

  3. Fix comment in indexing.c

  4. Fix failure to ignore leftover temp tables after a server crash.

Hi all

This is the latest patch

The updates are as follows:
1. Support global temp Inherit table global temp partition table
2. Support serial column in GTT
3. Provide views pg_gtt_relstats pg_gtt_stats for GTT’s statistics
4. Provide view pg_gtt_attached_pids to manage GTT
5. Provide function pg_list_gtt_relfrozenxids() to manage GTT
6. Alter GTT or rename GTT is allowed under some conditions


Please give me feedback.

Wenjing





> 2020年1月6日 上午4:06，Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> 写道：
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think we need to do something with having two patches aiming to add
> global temporary tables:
> 
> [1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/26/2349/
> 
> [2] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/26/2233/
> 
> As a reviewer I have no idea which of the threads to look at - certainly
> not without reading both threads, which I doubt anyone will really do.
> The reviews and discussions are somewhat intermixed between those two
> threads, which makes it even more confusing.
> 
> I think we should agree on a minimal patch combining the necessary/good
> bits from the various patches, and terminate one of the threads (i.e.
> mark it as rejected or RWF). And we need to do that now, otherwise
> there's about 0% chance of getting this into v13.
> 
> In general, I agree with the sentiment Rober expressed in [1] - the
> patch needs to be as small as possible, not adding "nice to have"
> features (like support for parallel queries - I very much doubt just
> using shared instead of local buffers is enough to make it work.)
> 
> regards
> 
> -- 
> Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services