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

Re: Book and TEMP vs. TEMPORARY

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Book and TEMP vs. TEMPORARY
Date: 2000-04-06 16:41:40
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > > TEMPORARY is SQL92 standard, TEMP is not.  Nuff said...
> > OK, but TEMPORARY doesn't work on 6.5.*, right?
> Sure it does (at least as far as I can tell. The test/locale stuff has
> screwed up CVS update, so I have to do a clean checkout of at least
> that directory to get my tree back in shape :(
> And, to beat a dead horse, I'm *still* not sure why we are carrying
> along the "TEMP" variant, losing the use of that name for other
> things.

Well, Tom Lane made it so we allow TEMP as an indentifier.  I now
remember that the issue with 7.0 was that everyone beat up on me because
I used TEMP instead of the SQL92-standard TEMPORARY when implementing
temporary tables.  See, it works now:

	test=> create table x ( temp char(2));

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Karel ZakDate: 2000-04-06 16:42:41
Subject: RE: pg_dumplo, thanks :) (fwd)
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-04-06 16:29:57
Subject: Re: Temporary indexes

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group