On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 04:54:22AM -0400, Mladen Gogala wrote:
> So, Postgresql will simply ignore "GLOBAL" or "LOCAL" and will create a
> local temporary table anyway? Why is that? Don't get me wrong, local
> temporary tables are a great replacement for cursors, but global
> temporary tables have their uses too.
Because it hasn't been implemented yet.
> Is there any hope that we will
> have global temporary tables in the foreseeable future? Another popular
> variety of databases supports global temporary tables but not local
> temporary tables. It would be very nice to have a standard terminology,
> wouldn't it?
Yes, in fact there has been talk about working on it for 9.1.
http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2010/05/global-temporary-and-unlogged-tables.html
--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com
