Re: Forbid to DROP temp tables of other sessions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: Forbid to DROP temp tables of other sessions
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwYTVwe_WGq22+O7CoztffbrhNh4bQfuSU2Kr6RQLQE5DA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Forbid to DROP temp tables of other sessions  (Daniil Davydov <3danissimo@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Forbid to DROP temp tables of other sessions
List pgsql-hackers
On Monday, March 17, 2025, Daniil Davydov <3danissimo@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 2."you have not any temporary relations" --> "you have no any temporary
> relations"
I am not an English speaker, but it seems that "have not" would be
more correct. Someone has to judge us :)


Both are not good.

“pg_temp was specified but it contains no relations” [1]

But why are we promoting this situation to an error?  It should be a relation not found error just like any other and not its own special case.  The fact we create pg_temp only as it is needed is an implementation detail that should not be visible to the user.  Either by saying pg_temp not found (possibly at this point) or pretending it does and letting the relation name lookup produce the error.

David J.

[1] It isn’t part of the style guide but I don’t think we use “you” to directly refer to the query author in error messages.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jacob Champion
Date:
Subject: Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER
Next
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: Disabling vacuum truncate for autovacuum