From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: idea: global temp tables |
Date: | 2009-04-27 21:22:14 |
Message-ID: | 49F62206.6030705@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>> I am thinking about global temp tables.
>>
>
> These would have some value to us.
>
> In case anyone doesn't know, this is a feature in the SQL standard.
> You have a permanent definition of the schema, but the table is
> materialized as a temporary table on reference by any connection.
>
> I can't speak to the practicality of the proposed implementation
> techniques.
>
>
>
Using a global table to achieve schema-persistent temp tables seems like
a horrid hack - what would you do if the table used a type other than a
standard built-in type?
Or perhaps Pavel doesn't really mean "global" as the term is used in
Postgres (c.f. the pg_database table)?
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-04-27 21:27:36 | Re: idea: global temp tables |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-04-27 21:06:36 | Re: idea: global temp tables |