Re: global temporary tables

On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 11:35 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:

> And I don't
> think you can even get that far, because I don't think too many people
> here are going to say that we shouldn't add global temporary tables
> unless we can also make them work with Hot Standby.

The policy round here for some time has been that when we implement
things we make them work fully and seamlessly. I don't see why Hot
Standby would be singled out any more than any other feature, say
Windows support or tablespaces should be occasionally ignored.

People need to get used to the new feature set, just as we had to with
HOT, subtransactions, prepared transactions, Gist etc.. That may require
a thwack from various people, but the responsibility lies with the new
feature implementor, not the person supporting existing code.

I fully understand your wish to implement a partial feature with caveats
because I have argued that many times myself. But I've come to realise
that the best way is to build things so they work cleanly across the
board. Other developers can plan projects in the knowledge that they can
build directly on firm foundations, not fill in the cracks. In the end
this comes down to a choice as developers, do we help each other by
doing a full job, or do we leave unexploded bombs for each other through
short-termism? Now I understand this better myself, I act differently
and accept objections if people think a fuller, more complete design is
what is needed. Recent demonstrations of that available, both objecting
and accepting.

Don't see this as an extra task, just see it as one of the many aspects
that will need to be considered when developing it. If you do that it
need not be additional work.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com