Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... I think I'll bite the bullet and store the ON COMMIT data in the > system catalogues per SQL99. Thoughts?
Seems like the very hard way, considering that there's no reason at all for the ON COMMIT status to survive a given backend run. I'd certainly vote against adding pg_class columns for it, if that's what you had in mind. I don't much like reintroducing the backend-local list of temp tables that existed in earlier releases, but maybe that's the best way to handle this feature. Anyone see a better way? > ... I would like to get this into 7.3, along with all the other > patches or features I've put my hand up for. What will be the > effective cut off for patches of this nature given 7.3 beta at the end > of the month. End of the month of course ... but I will say that the standards are going to rise as we get closer to the end. Patches submitted in the last week or so had better be right the first time. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]