| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Temporary Views |
| Date: | 2002-08-14 03:32:59 |
| Message-ID: | 4149.1029295979@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> SQL99 is pretty clear about temporary tables, at least.
It is ... and in fact the spec's notion of a temp table has nearly
nothing to do with ours. They contemplate a temp table as an abstract
table schema, if you will, that gets instantiated locally within a
session upon first use. There is no ability in the spec for two
sessions to create unrelated temp tables of the same name --- their temp
tables of the same name must share the same, predefined schema.
I wasn't around when PG's temp table concept was created, but I think
it's considerably superior to the spec's concept.
I'm willing to compare the spec's notions for guidance, but we must not
take it as gospel when we're deciding how temp objects should behave.
Their concept of temp-ness is different and very much more limited.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-14 03:34:28 | Re: Possible enhancement : replace view ? |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-08-14 03:28:52 | Re: [SQL] 16 parameter limit |