Re: idea: global temp tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: idea: global temp tables
Date
Msg-id 200904301536.42938.peter_e@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to idea: global temp tables  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: idea: global temp tables  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
The archives for this thread

http://archives.postgresql.org//pgsql-hackers/2009-04/threads.php#01329

show a bunch of missing messages.  Were they being stored in a temporary 
table?

Anywhere, here is what I had meant to say but only got through to a few ...


On Tuesday 28 April 2009 19:38:25 Tom Lane wrote:
> One thing I just noticed is that the spec does not consider GLOBAL/LOCAL
> to be optional --- per spec you *must* write one or the other in front
> of TEMPORARY.  So we could adopt the view that omitting this keyword
> implies our current non-spec behavior (which is far too useful to give
> up, spec compliance or no) while writing one or the other selects the
> spec behavior.  However, if we're going to do that then we should start
> throwing warnings for use of the keywords, preferably before the release
> in which they actually start doing something different.

There are actually two orthogonal properties at work here: How the table is 
visible with respect to modules (LOCAL/GLOBAL) and whether the table 
disappears at the end of the session (currently yes, proposed new behavior 
optionally no).  We should have two separate settings for these.

On the matter of LOCAL/GLOBAL, I think the correct thing to do is to reject 
LOCAL and accept GLOBAL as equivalent to the default.

And then invent a separate setting, say EPHEMERAL/PERSISTENT that controls the 
behavior that Pavel requested.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: idea: global temp tables
Next
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: idea: global temp tables