Re: [GENERAL] DROP [TEMP] TABLE syntax, as reason why not?

2017-08-24 Thread David G. Johnston
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "David G. Johnston" writes: > > I'm wondering if there is anything technical preventing someone from > making: > > > DROP TEMP TABLE tablename; > > There is no great need for that because you can get the semantics you're > asking for with "DROP

Re: [GENERAL] DROP [TEMP] TABLE syntax, as reason why not?

2017-08-24 Thread Tom Lane
Francisco Olarte writes: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Vincenzo Romano > wrote: >> Isn't a CHOICE for better syntax enough? >> Aren't symmetry and consistency valuable arguments? >> Syntactic sugar is not evil on its own. >> It can help people writing code that can be better understood. >

Re: [GENERAL] DROP [TEMP] TABLE syntax, as reason why not?

2017-08-24 Thread Francisco Olarte
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Vincenzo Romano wrote: > Isn't a CHOICE for better syntax enough? > Aren't symmetry and consistency valuable arguments? > Syntactic sugar is not evil on its own. > It can help people writing code that can be better understood. Valid arguments, but those extensio

Re: [GENERAL] DROP [TEMP] TABLE syntax, as reason why not?

2017-08-24 Thread Francisco Olarte
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Vincenzo Romano wrote: > Once you accept that Postgres is already extending the standard, I > would focus on syntax consistency and symmetry as a yet-another-extra > value from Postgres. > > Moreover, "DROP TEMP TABLE..." would make it clear and explicit that > th

Re: [GENERAL] DROP [TEMP] TABLE syntax, as reason why not?

2017-08-24 Thread Vincenzo Romano
2017-08-24 12:06 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule : > > > 2017-08-24 11:46 GMT+02:00 Vincenzo Romano : >> >> 2017-08-24 11:04 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule : >> > >> > >> > 2017-08-24 9:11 GMT+02:00 Vincenzo Romano : >> >> >> >> 2017-08-24 3:08 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane : >> >> > "David G. Johnston" writes: >> >> >> I'

Re: [GENERAL] DROP [TEMP] TABLE syntax, as reason why not?

2017-08-24 Thread Pavel Stehule
2017-08-24 11:46 GMT+02:00 Vincenzo Romano : > 2017-08-24 11:04 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule : > > > > > > 2017-08-24 9:11 GMT+02:00 Vincenzo Romano : > >> > >> 2017-08-24 3:08 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane : > >> > "David G. Johnston" writes: > >> >> I'm wondering if there is anything technical preventing someo

Re: [GENERAL] DROP [TEMP] TABLE syntax, as reason why not?

2017-08-24 Thread Vincenzo Romano
2017-08-24 11:04 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule : > > > 2017-08-24 9:11 GMT+02:00 Vincenzo Romano : >> >> 2017-08-24 3:08 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane : >> > "David G. Johnston" writes: >> >> I'm wondering if there is anything technical preventing someone from >> >> making: >> > >> >> DROP TEMP TABLE tablename; >>

Re: [GENERAL] DROP [TEMP] TABLE syntax, as reason why not?

2017-08-24 Thread Pavel Stehule
2017-08-24 9:11 GMT+02:00 Vincenzo Romano : > 2017-08-24 3:08 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane : > > "David G. Johnston" writes: > >> I'm wondering if there is anything technical preventing someone from > making: > > > >> DROP TEMP TABLE tablename; > > > > There is no great need for that because you can get th

Re: [GENERAL] DROP [TEMP] TABLE syntax, as reason why not?

2017-08-24 Thread Vincenzo Romano
2017-08-24 3:08 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane : > "David G. Johnston" writes: >> I'm wondering if there is anything technical preventing someone from making: > >> DROP TEMP TABLE tablename; > > There is no great need for that because you can get the semantics you're > asking for with "DROP TABLE pg_temp.tabl

Re: [GENERAL] DROP [TEMP] TABLE syntax, as reason why not?

2017-08-23 Thread Tom Lane
"David G. Johnston" writes: > I'm wondering if there is anything technical preventing someone from making: > DROP TEMP TABLE tablename; There is no great need for that because you can get the semantics you're asking for with "DROP TABLE pg_temp.tablename". regards, tom l