Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com> writes:
> > > ... Would it be possible to have either a GUC setting or a grammar
> > > change to allow TEMPORARY tables to be dropped at transaction commit?
> >
> > This seems like a not unreasonable idea; but the lack of other responses
> > suggests that the market for such a feature isn't there. Perhaps you
> > should try to drum up some interest on pgsql-general and/or pgsql-sql.
>
> I was wondering if it made sense to remove temp tables on transaction
> finish if the temp table was created in the transaction? That wouldn't
> require any syntax change. Seems non-standard though, and I can imagine
> a few cases where you wouldn't want it.
That is what I want to do, except by extending the grammar. I must admit
to actually being surprised that a TEMP table created inside a
transaction lived after the transaction completed. That's when I looked
at the standard and saw that PostgreSQL's implementation was correct. I
would think for most people session-long temp tables are more the
exception than the rule. But I guess SQL92 doesn't think so. Regardless,
a couple of other people have shown some interest in the idea. I'll post
it to general as well as Tom suggests...
Mike Mascari
mascarm@mascari.com
