Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > it could be considered either a global or a local temp table per > spec (without any module support you can't really say which it is). That seems bogus -- without modules it is clearly not LOCAL. What Pavel is requesting exactly matches the spec's definition of a global temporary table, but it does make me uneasy that after accepting the standard syntax, and behaving differently from it (including making no distinction between GLOBAL and LOCAL declarations) we would suddenly go to compliance on GLOBAL declarations but leave LOCAL as is. Maybe too messy to try to improve. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
