On 2015-07-15 16:36:12 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 15 July 2015 at 16:28, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > I think that's generally a fair point. But here we're discussing to add
> > a fair amount of wrinkles with the copy approach. The fact alone that
> > the oid is different will have some ugly consequences.
> >
>
> Why? We are creating a local temp table LIKE the global temp table. That is
> already a supported operation. So there is no "different oid".
Then your locking against ALTER, DROP etc. isn't going to work.
