Thread: why do we have rd_istemp?

Given "Relation rel", it looks to me like rel->rd_rel->relistemp will
always give the same answer as rel->rd_istemp.  So why have both?

...Robert

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Given "Relation rel", it looks to me like rel->rd_rel->relistemp will
> always give the same answer as rel->rd_istemp.  So why have both?

Might be historical --- relistemp is pretty new.
        regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > Given "Relation rel", it looks to me like rel->rd_rel->relistemp will
> > always give the same answer as rel->rd_istemp.  So why have both?
> 
> Might be historical --- relistemp is pretty new.

Is this a TODO or something we want to clean up?

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + None of us is going to be here forever. +

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Given "Relation rel", it looks to me like rel->rd_rel->relistemp will
>>> always give the same answer as rel->rd_istemp.  So why have both?
>> 
>> Might be historical --- relistemp is pretty new.

> Is this a TODO or something we want to clean up?

Doesn't strike me that it's worth the amount of code that would have to
change.  rd_istemp is known in a lot of places.  Replacing it with a
double indirection doesn't seem attractive anyway.
        regards, tom lane