Re: [PATCHES] Removal of temp tables

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I am wondering if pg_temp tables should even be seen as system tables by
> > IsSystemRelationName(). We have to call them pg_ so user applications
> > don't display them, but other than that they aren't like system tables.
> > Comments?
>
> This oughta be discussed on pghackers, not just -patches. But my
> thought is that we need a three-way distinction; at least some of the
> IsSystemRelation checks presumably *should* accept temp relnames, else
> we'd not have decided to do it that way in the first place.
>
> Another point is that when we implement schemas (= Real Soon Now, I
> trust), the whole business of temprels having different physical and
> logical relnames will go away anyhow. Temp rels will become plain rels
> that live in a temp schema. So it may not be worth adding further
> complexity to support the present approach. We'll just have to rip
> it out again ... better to expend the work on making schemas.

OK, the patch allows temp tables to be used in the places that need to
drop them. Not sure what else is needed. We don't want people creating
them tables with names like pg_temp because it could conflict with an
existing backend so it seems we will just need to open it up in special
places.

Other comments?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
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