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 22:21:03 |
Message-ID: | 200304152221.h3FML3k13999@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Huh? If we had modules, we'd probably actually implement it.
>
> If you want to look ahead that far, the question is whether rejecting
> LOCAL or treating it as a noise word, today, will provide the easiest
> update path to full support for module-LOCAL temp tables.
Seems so. I was saying we would remove LOCAL _only_ if we had modules
and didn't support LOCAL for them.
--
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 | Dennis Gearon | 2003-04-15 22:21:36 | Re: Upgrade to Red Hat Linux 9 broke PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Jonathan Bartlett | 2003-04-15 22:20:50 | Re: Upgrade to Red Hat Linux 9 broke PostgreSQL |