On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 17:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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/ > There's been some idle musing in the past about causing pg_class and > friends to have inheritance-child tables that are "temp", both in the > sense of being backend-local and of not having guaranteed storage, > and arranging to store the rows needed for a backend's temp tables > in there. There's still a long way to go to make that happen, but > at least it would be reasonably transparent on the client side. OK, very cool if we could make it work. I realised it would have to apply all the way through to pg_statistic. Brain dump a little more, while we're on the subject? This aspect is something I've not spent any time on yet, so even a few rungs up the ladder will help lots. Thanks. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers