Re: why do we have rd_istemp?

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Given "Relation rel", it looks to me like rel->rd_rel->relistemp will
>>> always give the same answer as rel->rd_istemp. So why have both?
>>
>> Might be historical --- relistemp is pretty new.

> Is this a TODO or something we want to clean up?

Doesn't strike me that it's worth the amount of code that would have to
change. rd_istemp is known in a lot of places. Replacing it with a
double indirection doesn't seem attractive anyway.

regards, tom lane