Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: idea: global temp tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: idea: global temp tables
Date: 2009-04-28 16:12:54
Message-ID: 4889.1240935174@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> ... Both forms of CREATE TEMP
> TABLE should persist the definition if you go by the standard, so you
> don't want to muddy the waters by complying on one and not the other?
 
Right.  This goes back to our old principle of trying not to use
spec-defined syntax for not-per-spec behavior.  We are already behind
the eight ball as far as temp tables go, but let's not make it worse by
blindly picking some spec-defined syntax without a plan for where we go
from here.  (I'm assuming that it's reasonably likely that we will want
a spec-compatible module feature someday.  We'll really have painted
ourselves into a corner if we don't think about the issue now.)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-04-28 16:18:53
Subject: Re: Small problem with PlaceHolderVar mechanism
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2009-04-28 16:05:43
Subject: Re: idea: global temp tables

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group