Re: Temporary Views

Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > SQL99 is pretty clear about temporary tables, at least.
>
> It is ... and in fact the spec's notion of a temp table has nearly
> nothing to do with ours. They contemplate a temp table as an abstract
> table schema, if you will, that gets instantiated locally within a
> session upon first use. There is no ability in the spec for two
> sessions to create unrelated temp tables of the same name --- their temp
> tables of the same name must share the same, predefined schema.
>
> I wasn't around when PG's temp table concept was created, but I think
> it's considerably superior to the spec's concept.

That was me. I think you were around, though.

> I'm willing to compare the spec's notions for guidance, but we must not
> take it as gospel when we're deciding how temp objects should behave.
> Their concept of temp-ness is different and very much more limited.

Well, again, looking at desired practice, I can't see how it can be
argued that having a view on a temp table _not_ exist the temporary
namespace can be defended, and everyone else seems to think it should,
so, added to TODO:

* Have views on temporary tables exist in the temporary namespace

TODO updated to remove mention of temporary views. We sort of now have
temporary views, but not completely so I can't mark those items as done;
I just removed them:

* Allow temporary views
* Require view using temporary tables to be temporary views

They don't behave 100% as temporary because of the namespace conflict.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073