Gavin, this is not even close to the CVS code. Would you regenerate
based on CVS. I could do it, but you will probably make a more reliable
patch.
---
Gavin Sherry wrote:
> Slight bug in the previous patch. Logically (an
Gavin, I will need a doc patch for this too. Thanks.
---
Gavin Sherry wrote:
> Slight bug in the previous patch. Logically (and according to SQL99's
> treatment of ON COMMIT), it can be specified only for CREATE TEMP
> TAB
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.
---
Gavin Sherry wrote:
> Slight bug in the previo
> > Anyone else keen for this feature?
>
> Attached is a patch implementing this. The patch is against 7.2.1
> source. The grammar introduced is of the form:
>
> CREATE TEMP TABLE ... ON COMMIT DROP;
>
> Is this a desirable feature? Seems pretty useful to me.
It's useful, there's a patch - wh
Gavin Sherry wrote:
>
> Slight bug in the previous patch. Logically (and according to SQL99's
> treatment of ON COMMIT), it can be specified only for CREATE TEMP
> TABLE. The patch throws an error if only CREATE TABLE has been specified.
...
> >
> > Attached is a patch implementing this. The pa
Slight bug in the previous patch. Logically (and according to SQL99's
treatment of ON COMMIT), it can be specified only for CREATE TEMP
TABLE. The patch throws an error if only CREATE TABLE has been specified.
Gavin
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Gavin Sherry wr
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Mike Mascari wrote:
>
> >
> > CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE
> > ...
> > ON COMMIT DROP;
> >
> > pseudo-compatible with the SQL-standard of:
> >
> > ON COMMIT { DELETE | PRESERVE } ROWS;
> >
> > so one day PostgreSQL's grammar would lo
Rocco Altier wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Mike Mascari wrote:
>
> > That is what I want to do, except by extending the grammar. I must admit
> > to actually being surprised that a TEMP table created inside a
> > transaction lived after the transaction completed. That's when I looked
> > at th
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Mike Mascari wrote:
> That is what I want to do, except by extending the grammar. I must admit
> to actually being surprised that a TEMP table created inside a
> transaction lived after the transaction completed. That's when I looked
> at the standard and saw that PostgreSQL'
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > ... Would it be possible to have either a GUC setting or a grammar
> > > change to allow TEMPORARY tables to be dropped at transaction commit?
> >
> > This seems like a not unreasonable idea; but the lack
Tom Lane wrote:
> Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ... Would it be possible to have either a GUC setting or a grammar
> > change to allow TEMPORARY tables to be dropped at transaction commit?
>
> This seems like a not unreasonable idea; but the lack of other responses
> suggests that
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Mike Mascari wrote:
>
> CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE
> ...
> ON COMMIT DROP;
>
> pseudo-compatible with the SQL-standard of:
>
> ON COMMIT { DELETE | PRESERVE } ROWS;
>
> so one day PostgreSQL's grammar would look like:
>
> ...
> ON COMMIT { DROP | { DELETE | PRESERVE } ROWS
Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... Would it be possible to have either a GUC setting or a grammar
> change to allow TEMPORARY tables to be dropped at transaction commit?
This seems like a not unreasonable idea; but the lack of other responses
suggests that the market for such a featur
I know you guys love subject lines like this, but I have a humble
request. Would it be possible to have either a GUC setting or a grammar
change to allow TEMPORARY tables to be dropped at transaction commit? I
know the standard defines the lifetimes of temporary tables to be that
of the session. H
14 matches
Mail list logo
