Re: Removal of temp tables - Mailing list pgsql-patches

> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Here is an updated patch that uses underscores in temp table names so
> > the DROP doesn't have to quote the table name:
>
> That seems like a reasonable idea, but don't do it to temp file
> names, ie, drop this part of the diff:
>
> > *** src/backend/storage/file/fd.c    2001/06/11 04:12:29    1.81
> > --- src/backend/storage/file/fd.c    2001/06/14 16:34:02
> > ***************
> > *** 756,762 ****
> >        * transaction and database instance.
> >        */
> >       snprintf(tempfilepath, sizeof(tempfilepath),
> > !              "%s/%s%d.%ld", PG_TEMP_FILES_DIR, PG_TEMP_FILE_PREFIX,
> >                MyProcPid, tempFileCounter++);
>
> >       /*
> > --- 756,762 ----
> >        * transaction and database instance.
> >        */
> >       snprintf(tempfilepath, sizeof(tempfilepath),
> > !              "%s/%s%d_%ld", PG_TEMP_FILES_DIR, PG_TEMP_FILE_PREFIX,
> >                MyProcPid, tempFileCounter++);
>
> >       /*
>
> There's no reason to spell temp file names as if they were rel names,
> and probably it's best not to make them look the same.

I was wondering that.  The old vacuum file detection patch had the sort
files going into /pg_sorttemp and files called pid_.  Your changes made
it pg_tempfile directory and pg_temp file names.  I like the older names
that made them clear they were _not_ temp tables.  Seemed you wanted
them to have similar names for reasons I couldn't figure.

I don't care if the sort files have dots so I will remove that part of
the patch, but I think we should consider making the sort files more
different than they are now --- dots vs. underscores.


> Also, an item I've ranted about before:
>
> > + #define is_temp_relname(relname) \
> > +         (!strncmp(relname, PG_TEMP_REL_PREFIX, strlen(PG_TEMP_REL_PREFIX)))
>
> It's bad style to treat the result of strcmp or strncmp as though it
> were a boolean, cf
> http://fts.postgresql.org/db/mw/msg.html?mid=68294
> Write (strncmp(...) == 0) instead.

OK, changed.

> Otherwise the patch seems reasonable, although I wonder what your
> motivation was for choosing these particular IsSystemRelationName calls
> to tweak.  It looks like you did more than the minimum needed to allow
> a DROP TABLE; why these extra ones and not others?  (Not that I'm
> encouraging you to go around and hit every IsSystemRelationName call.
> If you did, that'll just be more changes that I suspect we'll have to
> remove again in the long run.  I'm just curious why you touched, for
> example, VACUUM.)

I removed the vacuum part.  I added it because it looked particularly
bad to do REINDEX on temp tables but I have no reason to know that for
sure.

Patch attached.

--
  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