On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 9 June 2012 16:46, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Simon Riggs writes: >>>> Add ERROR msg for GLOBAL/LOCAL TEMP is not yet implemented >>> >>> I don't believe there was actual consensus for this change, >> >> It was hardly a subject of marked disagreement. > > Regarding GLOBAL, the three comments so far have been along the same > lines. But I assumed this was a 9.3 discussion.
I assumed it was a 9.2 discussion. >> Why would we do it for GLOBAL but not LOCAL also? > > Because the current support for temporary tables is relatively > similar to the standard's description of LOCAL TEMPORARY TABLES, but > nothing at all like the standard's descri0ption of GLOBAL TEMPORARY > TABLES. Now, I would love for us to also support DECLARE LOCAL > TEMPORARY TABLE, for a table for which the name would only be in > scope within a given code block, but that wouldn't require breaking > the existing syntax, as far as I can see. +1. I definitely see no point in complaining about LOCAL TEMP. > In terms of roll-out, I think a warning for at least a release or two > before actually throwing an error would make sense, even for GLOBAL. > If we seriously think that global temporary tables might be a 9.3 > item, maybe a notice or warning in 9.2 could be justified; but we are > on the second beta, so we need a pretty solid reason for any > behavioral change at this point. I am not sure that an ERROR on GLOBAL TEMP will break very much; there is little reason for anyone to be using that syntax. However, a WARNING is OK with me, too. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
