Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> IMHO, this is just getting too kludgey. We came up with pretty good
>> ideas on how to handle temp tables properly, by treating the same as
>> non-temp tables. That should eliminate all the problems the latest patch
>> did, and also the issues with sequences, and allow all access to temp
>> tables, not just a limited subset. I don't think it's worthwhile to
>> apply the kludge as a stopgap measure, let's do it properly in 8.5.
>> ...
>
> Can someone tell me how this should be worded as a TODO item?
There already is a todo item about this:
"Allow prepared transactions with temporary tables created and dropped
in the same transaction, and when an ON COMMIT DELETE ROWS temporary
table is accessed "
I added a link to the email describing the most recent idea on how this
should be implemented.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
