Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.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.
regards, tom lane
