On 2015-07-15 16:36:12 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 15 July 2015 at 16:28, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > 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".
Then your locking against ALTER, DROP etc. isn't going to work. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
