On 15 July 2015 at 16:28, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2015-07-15 16:24:52 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > It may be possible to do this, though I'm sure there's a wrinkle > somewhere. > > But there doesn't seem to be a need to overload the main feature request > > with additional requirements. Doing that is just scope creep that > prevents > > us getting features out. Nice, simple patches from newer developers. > Later > > tuning and tweaking from more expert community members. > > I think that's generally a fair point. But here we're discussing to add > a fair amount of wrinkles with the copy approach. The fact alone that > the oid is different will have some ugly consequences. >
Why? We are creating a local temp table LIKE the global temp table. That is already a supported operation. So there is no "different oid". > So we add complexity, just to shift it into different places later? I'm > not sure that's a good idea. > There's no complexity in a simple temp table like. We can do this now with triggers. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
