I love the fact that temp tables do not exist in every PostgreSQL session,
don't get me wrong. 

The issue is this: most "web environments" have the idea of a session. A
session management scheme based on PostgreSQL exposes PostgreSQL's worst
behavior. Small amount of records, high update/delete rate for each record. So
much so, that it probably isn't realistic to replace something like Oracle with
PostgreSQL in this environment.

Do "temp tables" suffer the same delete/update behavior of marking the row as
deleted and adding another row? Thus requiring vacuum periodically. 

If not, should/could there be a way to create a temp table that is globally
visible?

Wed, 20 Jun 2001 07:47:31 -0400
mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>
shared temp tables
> I love the fact that temp tables do not exist in every PostgreSQL session,
> don't get me wrong. 
> 
> The issue is this: most "web environments" have the idea of a session. A
> session management scheme based on PostgreSQL exposes PostgreSQL's worst
> behavior. Small amount of records, high update/delete rate for each record. So
> much so, that it probably isn't realistic to replace something like Oracle with
> PostgreSQL in this environment.
> 
> Do "temp tables" suffer the same delete/update behavior of marking the row as
> deleted and adding another row? Thus requiring vacuum periodically. 
> 
> If not, should/could there be a way to create a temp table that is globally
> visible?

Temp table are the same as real tables have have the same update
behavior.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:23:07 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: shared temp tables