| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables |
| Date: | 2003-04-15 22:11:19 |
| Message-ID: | 200304152211.h3FMBJj13280@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> So it now seems clear to me that we are in error to reject CREATE GLOBAL
> TEMP TABLE; we ought to accept that.
>
> What I am wondering now is if we should flip the logic to reject CREATE
> LOCAL TEMP TABLE? Or should we just silently accept both? I'm leaning
> towards the latter, on the grounds of backward compatibility.
Well, since we don't support modules, I think we should allow LOCAL. If
we had modules, we should reject it.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-15 22:17:16 | Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables |
| Previous Message | Ron Mayer | 2003-04-15 22:07:07 | Re: Are we losing momentum? |