On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Jaime Casanova <ja...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Just "DROP TABLE pg_temp_2.foo" or whatever and away you go. > >> wow! that's true... and certainly a bug... > > No, it's not a bug. You'll find only superusers can do it. > >> we shouldn't allow any session to drop other session's temp tables, or >> is there a reason for this misbehavior? > > It is intentional, though I'd be willing to give it up if we had more > bulletproof crash-cleanup of temp tables --- which is one of the things > this patch is supposed to result in.
This patch only directly addresses the issue of cleaning up the storage, so there are still the catalog entries to worry about. But it doesn't seem impossible to think about building on this approach to eventually handle that part of the problem better, too. I haven't thought too much about what that would look like, but I think it could be done. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
