Re: Temporary tables under hot standby

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:55:15PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>> Concerning everyone's favorite topic, how to name the new type of table, I
>> liked Tom's proposal[1] to make CREATE TEMP TABLE retain current behavior and
>> have CREATE GLOBAL TEMP TABLE and/or CREATE LOCAL TEMP TABLE request the new
>> SQL-standard variety.  (I'd vote for using CREATE GLOBAL and retaining CREATE
>> LOCAL for future expansion.)  As he mentions, to get there, we'd ideally start
>> by producing a warning instead of silently accepting GLOBAL as a noise word.
>> Should we put such a warning into 9.2?
>
> Here is the change I'd make.

This is listed on the open items list.

I haven't ever heard anyone propose to redefine CREATE LOCAL TEMP
TABLE to mean anything different than CREATE TEMP TABLE, so I'm
disinclined to warn about that.

I would be more open to warning people about CREATE GLOBAL TEMP TABLE
- frankly, it's pretty wonky that we allow that but treat GLOBAL as a
noise word in this first place. But I'm a little disinclined to have
the message speculate about what might happen in future versions of
PostgreSQL. Such predictions don't have a very good track record of
being accurate.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company