Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.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.
That was me. I think you were around, though.
> 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.
Well, again, looking at desired practice, I can't see how it can be
argued that having a view on a temp table _not_ exist the temporary
namespace can be defended, and everyone else seems to think it should,
so, added to TODO:
* Have views on temporary tables exist in the temporary namespace
TODO updated to remove mention of temporary views. We sort of now have
temporary views, but not completely so I can't mark those items as done;
I just removed them:
* Allow temporary views * Require view using temporary tables to be temporary views
They don't behave 100% as temporary because of the namespace conflict.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
