Bruce Momjian wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
IMHO, this is just getting too kludgey. We came up with pretty good
ideas on how to handle temp tables properly, by treating the same as
non-temp tables. That should eliminate all the problems the latest patch
did, and also the issues with sequenc
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Emmanuel Cecchet wrote:
> > I just saw that this new patch was not considered because the previous
> > version ended being rejected.
> > Note that this version of the patch aims at supporting ONLY temp tables
> > that are created AND dropped in the same transaction. We
Hi Heikki,
The point of using temp tables was performance. Using regular tables in
our case would hurt performance too much. Well if we cannot get a
temporary fix in 8.4, we will maintain a separate patch to get that
functionality just for temp tables that are created and dropped in the
same
Emmanuel Cecchet wrote:
I just saw that this new patch was not considered because the previous
version ended being rejected.
Note that this version of the patch aims at supporting ONLY temp tables
that are created AND dropped in the same transaction. We need to be able
to use temp tables in tra
