> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I am wondering if pg_temp tables should even be seen as system tables by
> > IsSystemRelationName(). We have to call them pg_ so user applications
> > don't display them, but other than that they aren't like system tables.
> > Comments?
> This oughta be discussed on pghackers, not just -patches. But my
> thought is that we need a three-way distinction; at least some of the
> IsSystemRelation checks presumably *should* accept temp relnames, else
> we'd not have decided to do it that way in the first place.
> Another point is that when we implement schemas (= Real Soon Now, I
> trust), the whole business of temprels having different physical and
> logical relnames will go away anyhow. Temp rels will become plain rels
> that live in a temp schema. So it may not be worth adding further
> complexity to support the present approach. We'll just have to rip
> it out again ... better to expend the work on making schemas.
Here is an updated patch that uses underscores in temp table names so
the DROP doesn't have to quote the table name:
I will apply this in two days if there are no other comments.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2001-06-14 16:48:47|
|Subject: Re: remote database queries|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2001-06-14 16:31:54|
|Subject: Doing authentication in backend|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-06-14 17:13:04|
|Subject: Re: Removal of temp tables |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-06-14 15:23:29|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Removal of temp tables |