Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
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@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
