Hi, On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 6:46 PM Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > BTW, we still have another problem with temp tables. Tom wrote [1] about it > > within this thread: > > > > > Reality is that we cannot know whether an > > > unqualified-name RangeVar references a temp table until we do a > > > catalog lookup, so IMO we should not have a relpersistence field there > > > at all. At best it means something quite different from what it means > > > elsewhere, and that's a recipe for confusion. But changing that would > > > not be a bug fix (AFAIK) but refactoring to reduce the probability of > > > future bugs. > > > > I'll try to implement that next month. But if someone gets ahead of me, > > please > > attach me in CC of the new thread. > > Just a friendly ping on how is it going.
Sorry, I was too busy with my studies and completely forgot about it... I will start working on the patch within this week. Thanks for reminding me. BTW, recently I found out that we haven't completely gotten rid of the problem discussed here, so I started a new thread [1]. I think it might interest you. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAJDiXgiX2XZBHDNo%2BzBbvku%2BtchrUurvPRaN1_40mEQ1_sG90g%40mail.gmail.com -- Best regards, Daniil Davydov
