Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dave Page
Subject Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)
Date
Msg-id 937d27e10807111657l6489dae4we2c6c133af8b9760@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:41 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 17:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> > So it would seem that we need a way of handling temp tables that doesn't
>> > rely on catalog entries at all.
>>
>> That's a complete non-starter; I need go no farther than to point out
>> that it would break clients that expect to see their temp tables
>> reflected in pg_class and so forth.
>
> What does the SQL Standard say about the Information Schema I wonder/

Many apps were written long before we had one. Not too mention that it
doesn't provide anything like all the info that PostgreSQL-specific
tool (though not necessarily user apps) would likely need.

-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: posix advises ...
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: CITEXT 2.0 v3