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

Re: idea: global temp tables

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 16:51:47
Message-ID: 49F6EDD3.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote: 
 
> One thing I just noticed is that the spec does not consider
> GLOBAL/LOCAL to be optional --- per spec you *must* write one or the
> other in front of TEMPORARY.
 
Agreed.
 
> So we could adopt the view that omitting this keyword
> implies our current non-spec behavior (which is far too useful to
> give up, spec compliance or no) while writing one or the other
> selects the spec behavior.
 
+1 (+1)
 
> However, if we're going to do that then we should start
> throwing warnings for use of the keywords, preferably before the
> release in which they actually start doing something different.
 
We might actually want to have a major release which rejects the
standard syntax before the release where we implement standard
behavior for it.  (After, of course, a major release which issues the
warning.)  When we get to the point of breaking existing code (which
is inevitable if we move to compliance here), it's better to break in
a clear and predictable way....
 
Of course, that would mean that implementation would be three releases
away (warn, disable syntax, reenable syntax with standard semantics).
 
-Kevin

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-04-28 17:00:55
Subject: Re: idea: global temp tables
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-04-28 16:38:25
Subject: Re: idea: global temp tables

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